The officers had been interviewing [Ibragim] Todashev in his apartment for some time when he tried to attack them, [a federal law enforcement official] said....
२२ मे, २०१३
"Why are they killing these children without any trial or investigation?" asked Zubeidat Tsarnaeva...
... the mother of Tamerlan and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, after an FBI interview with a man in Florida ends with the government officials — investigating the man's connection to the Boston bombing — shooting him dead.
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
१०६ टिप्पण्या:
Seems they were trying to investigate, Ma'am
Gosh, I guess when you attack the police and federal agents with a knife in the case of this sub-human and with guns and IED's in the case of the other two sub-humans, you forfeit your right to a trial or an investigation, you mother of monsters.
I just killed my parents, and now I'm an orphan. How dare you to mistreat an orphan!!
It is a good question.
If only she had gotten her kids involved in spelling bees.
Sheesh. You attack the cops you get dead. Not too hard to understand. "Why did the cops shoot him simply because he attacked them? "
All this woman needs is a hilarious YouTube video to go viral and she's set.
The main thing is that the immigration from muslim lands MUST continue. And don't you dare ask the best and the brightest why. Why? We're the best and the brightest and we want what we want and we get what we want and shut up troglodyte!
I wonder if this guy was on-the-dole as well.
There must be a reason why so much of the media think I want to know what "the mother of the Boston Marathon bombing suspects" has to say.
Why? Of all the people I might listen to, why would I want to listen to her?
Perhaps we're supposed to pay her blood money?
Hey, it was just a knife. It is not like terrorist ever used a knife to kill anyone. And why shoot the guy? It's not like he was bashing the officer's head against the sidewalk MMA style. He was just a kid. Florida needs to ban guns for the children!
How could anyone be so stupid to ask this question in the apparent belief stopping an attack in progress does not require a trial and convicton?
The obvious answer is that literally no one is this stupid, and so the next question is why she's promoting terrorist rhetoric. Remember that al queda trains its members to attack the legitimacy of the the west. Someone should look pretty closely at dear old mom.
Of all the people I might listen to, why would I want to listen to her?
Cindy Sheehan syndrome. She who has absolute moral authority.
...or sum'thin
As Officer Malone said to Special Agent Ness, "Never bring a knife to a gun fight".
That's why, dear.
"
"Why are they killing these children without any trial or investigation?" asked Zubeidat Tsarnaeva..."
*Facepalm*
False framing. This wasn't an execution. This was police responding to a pair of armed criminals, both of whom admitted to having just killed a lot of people, and one of whom charged the police while shooting at them.
If this were an extrajudicial execution, then the question is legitimate, but this mother's statement is lying by false framing.
Mitchell the Bat said...
All this woman needs is a hilarious YouTube video to go viral and she's set.
She could have teamed up with Tan Mom and made something really special.
Hey, We are Tan and Terror Mom, Bitch!!! Comedy^Infinity
If they are questioning him, why haven't they already ascertained whether he's armed or not?
Not clear from the article whether he was at his house, or at some FBI facility. Maybe he was at his house and their were knives stashed.
Seems like a fail on the FBI agents' part, though, to allow the attack to occur.
I they weren't already, cops might be a little nervous about knife attacks after watching tonight's news.
*If
Now I see a whole post devoted to that topic. Doh!
This bitch needs to be put into a hole somewhere.
Get on that, Putin.
Hey, Tibore, you screwed up!
(*headslap*)
Yes, I only mentioned the Boston Bombers and not today's suspect. But the point still stands; he tried to attack the FBI agents with a frikkin' knife. This still isn't some extrajudicial killing, as Tsarnaeva's implying.
The guy was being questioned in his apartment and he just decided to attack his armed interlocutor?
Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight!
No law enforcement officer has ever killed someone and planted a weapon or made an unverifiable allegation of self-defense after the fact, have they?
I agree completely with her question, but I'd add two words:
"Your sons... Why are they killing these children?"
Robert Cook said...
The guy was being questioned in his apartment and he just decided to attack his armed interlocutor?
Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight!
No law enforcement officer has ever killed someone and planted a weapon or made an unverifiable allegation of self-defense after the fact, have they?
And no Islamic crazy, figuring the jig was up, has ever gone off, picked up a knife, and taken on all comers, screaming, "Allahu Akbar", have they?
Cook,
Good point. It would be so out of character for him to want to become a martyr.
You did see the story from the UK, where two folks killed a soldier, and then waited 20 minutes for the armed cops to show up, so they could get shot?
But that never happens. Except when it does.
If only she had gotten her kids involved in spelling bees.
Winning!
The main thing is that the immigration from muslim lands MUST continue.
Actually, the main thing is, what was this fucker planning living a few miles from Disney World, Universal Studios, Sea World, etc. (We've even got a Hub Cap World down here somewhere, or we used to.)
"Remember that al queda trains its members to attack the legitimacy of the the west."
Do they? How do you know this? What aspect of the west's legitimacy are they trained to question?
For that matter, why would they have to train anyone to do this? Legitimacy is often purely in the eye of the beholder, and there are a lot of eyes in the world to whom the West has questionable legitimacy in some areas of activity. Are such perceptions by definition wrong or unwarranted, the result of training or brainwashing? A resident of Pakistan or Afghanistan who see his neighbors or children blown to pieces by drone bombs should continue to sing "Hooray for the USA?"
"And no Islamic crazy, figuring the jig was up, has ever gone off, picked up a knife, and taken on all comers, screaming, "Allahu Akbar", have they?"
I don't know.
Probably not as often as you rhetorically purport.
Robert Cook said...
The guy was being questioned in his apartment and he just decided to attack his armed interlocutor?
Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight!
No law enforcement officer has ever killed someone and planted a weapon or made an unverifiable allegation of self-defense after the fact, have they?
Doesn't it ever occur to you that by framing your objections in terms which might be true in 1% of cases (or .0001%) you're effectively accepting you'll be wrong at least 99% of the time? Do you also believe the Boston cops shot the bomber while unarmed and surrendering in plain view of a dozens homes?
Get a grip, what does pointing out that corruption exists get you? Or is it simply that you feel compelled to defend those attacking Americans no matter the facts?
"Actually, the main thing is, what was this fucker planning living a few miles from Disney World, Universal Studios, Sea World, etc."
Maybe he was just planning on chilling out and enjoying the long Memorial Day weekend.
Robert Cook said...
"Remember that al queda trains its members to attack the legitimacy of the the west."
Do they? How do you know this? What aspect of the west's legitimacy are they trained to question?
Among other things they are trained to claim they were tortured regardless of whether they were or not. I know this because unlike you I don't dismiss facts inconvenient to my neuroses.
Ah Cooktard, going from Stalin apologist to muslim apologist today are we?
Stay classy Cookie, stay class.
I hat to do this, but Cook does have a point. (I was getting ready to make it myself.) How did a couple of FBI agents let themselves get put in a situation where they lost control of the situation like that? Aren't they supposed to be our most bad-assed law enforcement officers?
NOTE: In the last few years we've had several incidents of local law enforcement killing people indiscriminately. In one case, two officers looking for a thief knocked on a guy's door in the middle of the night without announcing themselves. When the man in the apartment armed himself to answer the door and opened the door (this was a bad neighborhood) the police officers shot him dead. I should note that the guy they killed was guilty of nothing but wanting to protect himself in the middle of the night - they had the wrong apartment.
In another incident, the police fired off about 140 rounds in an apartment complex one night to stop a car thief. They hit him a few times and killed him, but they also shot the windows out of several bedrooms, including one with an infant sleeping inside. Luckily no one else was hurt. Cops down here are very much of the "shoot first, determine why we shot him later" variety.
Seriously, if this guy was so important that they needed to question him at that time of day, in relation to a terror investigation, why didn't they make certain they had control of the situation? At least in the reports from earlier today (it's a local story to me, took place about seven miles from my house), the questioning was already under way when the attack happened. The FBI agents fucked up, one way or another.
Marshall,
I don't know what happened in the apartment in Florida, or whether the man being question did not or actually did try to attack the officers questioning him.
However, on first blush it just sounds suspicious to me, and it is the reflexive acceptance by American citizens of the accounts of law enforcement officers when a citizen ends up on the bad end of a violent encounter--unless there is video to contradict their accounts--that allows such encounters to happen so often with so little consequence for the officers or agents involved. It seems funny to me (odd funny, not funny funny) that the gub'mint-hating, gun-totin' would-be Tea Party revolutionaries here are so quick to accept without question the tale told by his killers of a lone citizen in his apartment drawing a knife and getting himself killed thereby.
If the verifiable facts that come out prove my suspicions wrong, fine. I'd rather believe our law enforcement personnel always abide by the law and always use violence as a last resort.
But we know this isn't true.
I am not conspiracy minded. but if I was, this would look very fishy.
The FBI should have interviewed the suspects at an office and videotaped it.
Oh and Cooktard, where do you see that the pedophile worshipping friend of Speedbump is a citizen?
Cook -
You and the Left need to rid yourselves... fast... of your perverse love affair with radical Islamism and treating terrorists as "misguided yute's that have run afoul of criminal law" because what "America and society have done to them", and how the liberals beloved Lawyers and Rule of Law will set everything hnky-dory again.
And today in the streets of London, a white soldier wearing a T-shirt saying support "our wounded heroes"...was set on by two black immigrants who were Islamoids.
Chanting Allah-u-Akbar, they killed the soldier with carving knives and machetes. Then hacked his head off, and began disembowling himself and screaming for people in the horrified crowd to take pictures and video "Because this is what happens when you persecute Muslims anywhere".
When cops arrived, they had to shoot the Islamoids in order stop them as they moved to attack
police with their weapons.
Fortunately, while Britain has it's own problems with a Jihadi-loving, muslim immigration-loving Left...they don't have Eric Holder and Miranda - so the two wounded Islamoids will be questioned. Vigorously.
And a penny will get you a Euro that the Mayor and the PM will not characterize the attack as a "senseless tragedy". But as terrorism from the 1st time their mouths are open.
Defenders of Hillary and Barack, take note.
And for the gun nuts - that say that they would have blown the Islamoids heads off as they hacked apart the dead soldier's body...please.
Ideally we need to capture these adherents of the Religion of Peace to hopefully interrogate once the Left is done loving Jihad and Jihadist Rights. To find where the other pockets of cancer are.
Robert Cook said...
It seems funny to me (odd funny, not funny funny) that the gub'mint-hating, gun-totin' would-be Tea Party revolutionaries here are so quick to accept without question the tale told by his killers of a lone citizen in his apartment drawing a knife and getting himself killed thereby.
Unlike you we're waiting for evidence.
The agent, two Massachusetts State Police troopers, and other law enforcement personnel were interviewing an individual in connection with the Boston Marathon bombing investigation when a violent confrontation was initiated by the individual,” the statement said. “During the confrontation, the individual was killed and the agent sustained non-life threatening injuries,”
I don't think at least four people from separate agencies are colluding to cover up a murder.
http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=6329595&postID=5454350793659676371&page=1&token=1369256290376
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/05/22/18418012-man-with-ties-to-boston-bombing-suspect-admits-role-in-2011-murders-shot-during-fbi-questioning?lite
Wrong link.
Stay classy, Zubeidat.
Stay classy.
"Investigators said they initially believed Mr. Todashev had used a knife in the attack, but in the afternoon, they said that it was unclear what he was holding when he violently attacked an agent."
Already the story is being revised.
"According to a senior law enforcement official, Mr. Todashev implicated himself and Mr. Tsarnaev in the Waltham murders. “'He had only said it orally but had not signed anything,' the official said."
So, it's not even clear if the man really was involved in a triple murder or that he had implicated himself; this is merely alleged after the fact.
Look, events may have gone down just as reported, and maybe the dude was a killer who decided to make a break for it or go out with a bang, but we should not swallow the story unskeptically just because it's easy or convenient to believe it.
Icepick - "Icepick said...
I hat to do this, but Cook does have a point. (I was getting ready to make it myself.) How did a couple of FBI agents let themselves get put in a situation where they lost control of the situation like that? Aren't they supposed to be our most bad-assed law enforcement officers?"
The Islamoid - a Chechen immigrant giving us the "blessings of diversity" - was a licensed mixed martial arts fighter with other suspected combat skills.
And suspected, along with Tamerlan and female heartthrob Dzokhar..of being involved in robbing, then slitting the throats of 3 US citizens to get spending money and funds for Jihad.
Yes, it might have been nice if they had Tazers and baseball bats at the ready...
But it seems the FBI and the cops there had the same mindset as the cops that arrested the Islamoid a month ago for beating a man unconscious with broken bones and teeth knocked out...over a parking spot argument. They got his name and realized - or knew already - he was an exceptionally dangerous "refugee from persecution"..with MMA and combat training.
When he threatened to attack Florida deputies in that incident..they told him armed or not..if he tried to..they would just shoot until he stopped twitching.
Robert Cook said...
And no Islamic crazy, figuring the jig was up, has ever gone off, picked up a knife, and taken on all comers, screaming, "Allahu Akbar", have they?
I don't know.
Probably not as often as you rhetorically purport.
The term "running amok" ring any bells?
BTW, it only has to happen once.
"You and the Left need to rid yourselves... fast... of your perverse love affair with radical Islamism and treating terrorists as 'misguided yute's that have run afoul of criminal law' because what "America and society have done to them", and how the liberals beloved Lawyers and Rule of Law will set everything hnky-dory again."
Ummm...you need to get a grip on what I or others actually believe or claim.
I have no love for those who do violence and commit murder for their political or religious causes, whatever they may be. On the other hand, I don't accept that everyone we claim is a terrorist is necessarily a terrorist. A majority of those who have been held at Gitmo--once claimed by Rumsfeld to be the "worst of the worst"--have been released, as they were determined to be innocent of any wrongdoing, or that no evidence could support such claims. Many of those fighting our soldiers overseas are probably not doctrinaire "terrorists" but simply people who wish to seek revenge against the people (us) who are killing them and their loved ones, who wish to repel the invaders from a foreign land (us) from their land.
I've asked this before but no one is willing to answer: if a foreign force invaded our country, imprisoning, torturing, and killing our citizens, don't you think Americans would want to fight back, to seek revenge, to kill the dirty foreign bastards and send 'em to Hell, or running back to their lands? In the eyes (and justifications) of our invaders, we would all be labeled "terrorists" and "illegal combatants." Would such a self-serving designation mean anything to those here who were fighting back, or have any objective legitimacy?
No.
Drop dead, Zoobiedoobie.
Unlike you we're waiting for evidence.
Yeah the righties around here are real big on "waiting for evidence."
if a foreign force invaded our country, imprisoning, torturing, and killing our citizens, don't you think Americans would want to fight back, to seek revenge, to kill the dirty foreign bastards and send 'em to Hell, or running back to their lands? In the eyes (and justifications) of our invaders, we would all be labeled "terrorists" and "illegal combatants." Would such a self-serving designation mean anything to those here who were fighting back, or have any objective legitimacy?
Of course, but one can draw a distinct difference, similar to the difference between the French Resistance and the planned German 'Werewolf' units. One can also look at the distinct behaviors of the resistance units. Units like the French Resistance and the Yugoslav partisans targeted military targets (which is a much broader category in a total war) and often took pains to distinguish themselves from civilians in combat situations.
I can to some degree respect a German teenager taking up arms in the defense of Germany in the closing days of the war, yet I would not morally categorize him as being on a high a level as a patriotic Frenchman or Pole, even if the German is strictly obeying the laws of war and the Frenchman or Pole isn't. Of course the German would disagree.
Your breed of moral relativism has led to a world where nothing is permitted, which works out the same as a world where everything is permitted...
It is not a bad question after considering the FBI's murders at Waco and Ruby Ridge.
A majority of those who have been held at Gitmo--once claimed by Rumsfeld to be the "worst of the worst"--have been released, as they were determined to be innocent of any wrongdoing, or that no evidence could support such claims.
This is not true. They were released for various reasons including that we could not prosecute them without revealing how we gather information. So the left successfully prevented their prosecution, and in fact people died for it as some of those released went on to commit further acts of terrorism.
phx said...
Unlike you we're waiting for evidence.
Yeah the righties around here are real big on "waiting for evidence."
You mean like that Trayvon thing a while back?
The Lefties waited, what, 5 seconds before convicting Zimmerman?
phx said...
Unlike you we're waiting for evidence.
Yeah the righties around here are real big on "waiting for evidence."
Your confusion is that when we say we wait for evidence we mean that.
When you say you're waiting for evidence it's a strategy to avoid evaluating the current evidence in favor of an OJ esque search for the real evidence.
Conspiracy theories aside, it comes down to a matter of motives and capabilities.
If the goal of the US was to kill Muslims, it's fairly easy to say the bodycount would be far, far greater. If we could reduce the numbers of innocent Muslims killed and/or imprisoned and still get the terrorists, why would we not do so?
Contrary-wise, is there any indication that any of these terrorists has done anything to limit the number of bystanders injured, or instead have they taken steps to increase the damage caused by their attacks? I would expect a terrorist group that is trying to scare Americans to change national policy to take steps to highlight the scare factor, like call in bomb threats. I would expect a terrorist group that is trying to kill Americans to pack the bombs with shrapnel to increase the carnage.
I can come up with conspiracy theories to explain why this guy was shot. Could be an accidental weapon discharge that was covered up, could be he was actually a vampire and he was killed to keep the secret. Barring these sorts of theories, I have no idea why the FBI would go in with the intent to kill instead of capture. If they're legitimate keepers of the peace, it's their job; if they're jackbooted thugs, it's so he can be waterboarded in Gitmo...
It gets curiouser. Local news outlets are stating that the dead Chechen confessed to the 2011 murders in Boston before getting himself shot to death. He apparently implicated the older Tsarnaev brother, at the very least. Unclear if he said anything about the bombing.
A fried of the dead suspect claims that the only reason the suspect hadn't returned to Chechnia was that he wanted to clear things up with the FBI first. I don't find this testimony terribly compelling, but there may be stuff to back up part of that study.
Because the president refuses to send them to Gitmo, cannot not arrest them as in Benghazi, cannot drone-kill them as in Pakistan.
jr565 said...
Sheesh. You attack the cops you get dead.
In Obamaland, who knows which version, the cop's or the robber's, is true.
Haven't we believed Obama's IRS instead of the Tea Party conspiracy theorists for the last four years? Haven't Attorney-Sergeant Schultz accused Fox News Reporter of violating the Espionage Act for doing his job? Haven't the see-nothing Justice Dept hacked the computer of the CBS reporter who reported Fast-and-Furious gun walking?
Kid, we don't live in our father's America any more.
I've asked this before but no one is willing to answer: if a foreign force invaded our country, imprisoning, torturing, and killing our citizens, don't you think Americans would want to fight back, to seek revenge, to kill the dirty foreign bastards and send 'em to Hell, or running back to their lands? In the eyes (and justifications) of our invaders, we would all be labeled "terrorists" and "illegal combatants." Would such a self-serving designation mean anything to those here who were fighting back, or have any objective legitimacy?
So that whole World Trade Center thing - what was that, just an unavoidable youthful error in judgment that America should overlook?
Your confusion is that when we say we wait for evidence we mean that.
Yeah, that's believable.
"They were released for various reasons including that we could not prosecute them without revealing how we gather information. So the left successfully prevented their prosecution....
You choose to believe this because it's comfortable for you. The "left" never prevented any prosecutions of these prisoners; the Bush administration never tried. They determined most of those held there were not terrorists. We didn't "gather information" to imprison those people; we paid bounties and bounty hunters simply dragged in people willy nilly to get the bounty. We paid the bounties and ended up with a camp full of hapless kidnap victims.
"...and in fact people died for it as some of those released went on to commit further acts of terrorism."
How many? 2? 5? 10? 100? I think it has been determined a handful of released Gitmo prisoners committed violence subsequent to their release. Did they "return" to "the battlefield," (i.e., anywhere we say it is), or were they radicalized by their unjust imprisonment and driven to seek revenge, never having been violent actors previously? How can we know?
Actions have consequences, ours no less than any.
According to Steve Sailer, there are 100 Chechens in the US. So far three of them are violent killers. Pretty high ratio if you ask me. I don't doubt Terror Mom might have some blood on her hands as well.
You choose to believe this because it's comfortable for you. The "left" never prevented any prosecutions of these prisoners; the Bush administration never tried. They determined most of those held there were not terrorists.
...And the Roosevelt administration never tried to prosecute any Axis prisoners either, at least until the war was over (and then, only a small handful of the worst cases (sound familiar?)).
What's inconvenient is that the US has no motive or reason for keeping individuals we know to be innocents (aside from the tricky cases where their own countries may treat them worse than we did). We have reason to keep those in a gray area, until we can determine (imperfectly) which side they fall on. That's the way it's always been. Why, now, is it wrong for us to act this way?
Was this interview taking place in the suspect's own house? if so, no video but I suppose there is at least an audio recording of the interrogation. This does not reflect well on the FBI. They could not subdue a 160 lb. man with (what I have read) three officers without killing him? sounds like an interrogation by Russian Security. Dreadful incompetent action.
"What's inconvenient is that the US has no motive or reason for keeping individuals we know to be innocents (aside from the tricky cases where their own countries may treat them worse than we did)."
Sure we do: concealing the fact that we have imprisoned innocents; CYA on the part of those involved all up and down the line; a self-created conviction that they are guilty in the absence of evidence to that effect; bureaucratic intertia, etc.
Heck, there are men at Gitmo NOW who have been cleared for release but who are still being held.
"We have reason to keep those in a gray area, until we can determine (imperfectly) which side they fall on. That's the way it's always been. Why, now, is it wrong for us to act this way?"
Who says it was ever right?
Robert Cook said...
Heck, there are men at Gitmo NOW who have been cleared for release but who are still being held.
C'mon, we only try to protect these people. Once they are released and sent home, we cannot protect them from the president's killer-drones.
"So that whole World Trade Center thing - what was that, just an unavoidable youthful error in judgment that America should overlook?"
It was a crime committed by a small band of fanatics. It did not warrant invading several countries and initiating multiple aggressive wars, wars still going on more than a decade later.
(While there might have been a slight basis to enter Afghanistan to attempt to capture bin Laden, once he got away we should have left immediately. There was no basis to stay and NONE to invade Iraq.)
I do not believe the government acted merely to "get the bad guys," or even merely out of a desire for revenge, (although the public's fear and desire for revenge was played upon by the government to secure our approval for their war plans). I believe, in addition to these other likely motives, 9/11 gave some in the Bush administration the "new Pearl Harbor" they had been looking for to justify launching a war of economic and political hegemony on the Middle East, at least partly to secure control over access to and management of the oil resources in that part of the world.
Who says it was ever right?
If everything is wrong, then there's no reason to ever hold back. You propose a set of rules that make combat impossible, with the idea behind it that imposing a set of rules on warfare that makes combat impossible will make war impossible.
We've seen the results of that. Most countries know they can't win a war with the rules of World War 2 in place, much less the far stricter rules the US uses today, so they don't even try to play by the rules. In fact, they choose a set of behaviors designed to turn the rules we follow into a weakness, to the point where we can't win a war fought under our current rules. So we have a choice, to either not fight (so people know that if they fight dirty, they don't have to worry about the US, meaning more will choose to fight dirty) or to chose a set of less humane rules. I am not willing to wager that the US will not chose a set of less humane rules for future combat, and I'm sure neither of us would like that result.
I keep bringing up World War 2, both because I know the subject and you don't, and I know that by and large the American people consider it a justly fought war (setting aside the known issue with the internment of the Japanese-Americans on the West Coast.) Since you keep dodging the question: were the rules used by the US in World War 2 just, and, if so, what makes the current rules unjust?
C'mon, we only try to protect these people. Once they are released and sent home, we cannot protect them from the president's killer-drones.
It's more like, we can't protect them from their own government, and no one else wants them.
The conspiracy theory 'we're keeping innocent people locked up in Gitmo to hide the fact we're keeping innocent people in Gitmo' is stupid when we've already released innocents (and guilty) from Gitmo and everyone knows we've got people who claim to be innocent in Gitmo. We know the government is stupid and bueracratically hidebound; when has it ever been different.
Suppose there was a hypothetical rule that bank robbers should all wear a distinctive armband so the cops don't shoot an innocent bystander by mistake. What advantage is it for a bank robber to wear the armband in this case, especially if there is no punishment for doing so? All it serves as is a distinctive target for the police, and evidence in case he gets caught.
If SNL had any balls, they'd make her a character in her own talk show (or something)
Zubeiwhat?
ZUBEIDAT!
Robert Cook said...
"They were released for various reasons including that we could not prosecute them without revealing how we gather information. So the left successfully prevented their prosecution....
You choose to believe this because it's comfortable for you. The "left" never prevented any prosecutions of these prisoners; the Bush administration never tried.
It's amazing you're willing to uncritically accept any statement no matter how ridiculous as long as it's to the detriment of America. All your skepticism talk is just bullshit.
The left prevented prosecution by demanding that all evidence be presented in open court. You knew the result would be that the prisoners would be unable to be tried and you pushed for it because that's what you wanted.
Your killers are worse than our killers.
Are not
Are too.
You suck.
So no one thought to ask the stupid bitch if the question was simple projection? Her sons killed an eight-year-old they didn't even know who had never done them any harm, without any warning, much less trial or investigation - and she has the nerve to complain about "killing these children without any trial or investigation"? How fucking stupid does a reporter have to be not to challenge her on that?
Children?
The only child who died was Martin Richard, and he was eight years old.
"The left prevented prosecution by demanding that all evidence be presented in open court."
What a dastardly, unAmerican concept! Dirty leftists!
"You knew the result would be that the prisoners would be unable to be tried and you pushed for it because that's what you wanted."
The concept of "innocent until proven guilty" is sort of intended to prevent abuse of state power and to insure insofar as possible that we do not imprison or otherwise punish people who are innocent merely on the state's say so.
How subversive!
Robert Cook said...
"The left prevented prosecution by demanding that all evidence be presented in open court."
What a dastardly, unAmerican concept! Dirty leftists!
Neither America nor any other country had ever prosecuted POWs as criminal defendants, nor should we have. But it is interesting you agree your goal was to have them released regardless of their deeds.
"Neither America nor any other country had ever prosecuted POWs as criminal defendants, nor should we have."
But there's the difference: we didn't know and were never shown proof these men were "POWs", that is, actual armed antagonists of the United States. And most of them weren't. They were men who had simply been dragooned by others who wanted to grab the bounty money we were offering. You're willing to accept that they were armed antagonists of the US merely on the government's say so. This is antithetical to the basis of our Bill of Rights, (i.e., distrust of the state and its tendency to expand and abuse its power).
"But it is interesting you agree your goal was to have them released regardless of their deeds."
FAIL. You were drunk when you read my comments, right? Blotto? Fucked up? Situationally illiterate?
I had no "goal," but merely the expectation that our government show evidence these men were guilty of the allegations against them, try them in open court, to be found guilty or innocent after deliberation by a jury. Either that, or release them.
The government released most of them, (and have cleared others for release who are still languishing in detention). This indicates the government concluded they were either innocent of the allegations against them or that there was insufficient evidence to obtain convictions; in our system of justice, this latter circumstance is a fail safe for all of us against being unjustly held by the state. It's not a loophole or a bug, but a primary feature.
Robert Cook said...
"Neither America nor any other country had ever prosecuted POWs as criminal defendants, nor should we have."
But there's the difference: we didn't know and were never shown proof these men were "POWs", that is, actual armed antagonists of the United States. And most of them weren't.
How amusing that you first block the process by which we could distinguish POWs from others and then whine that we didn't do exactly that. Also note that when you claim most of them weren't you're again yielding to your anti-Americanism. By your own admission you don't know this answer, and yet you claim in the majority of cases America is in the wrong.
You're willing to accept that they were armed antagonists of the US merely on the government's say so.
This is wrong, I and most people wanted a process to make this evaluation. In fact you are the only one making sweeping generalizations of the captives.
I had no "goal,"
Of course you did. Your goal was to sabotage any due process so you could criticize America. Not only was this the left's goal generally but you personally reveal it virtually every time you comment.
Marshall,
I see you're still reading my comments while blotto; I suggest you sober up so you can respond to what I actually have written and not to your bleary misreading of same.
While you may respond that I am making a cheap shot, I am not. Your misinterpretation / misrepresentation of what I have said is so egregious as to be possible only as the result of willful intent or of impaired functioning on your part.
Robert cook wrote:
The concept of "innocent until proven guilty" is sort of intended to prevent abuse of state power and to insure insofar as possible that we do not imprison or otherwise punish people who are innocent merely on the state's say so.
Except we know things that don't require a court to tell us so. For example the guy on camera talking to the camera man in London with blood all over his hands and a bloody hatchet talking about jihad while a dead decapitated serviceman lies behind him PROBABLY is
Guilty. I don't need a court to tell me as
Much.
"... if a foreign force invaded our country, imprisoning, torturing, and killing our citizens, don't you think Americans would want to fight back, to seek revenge, to kill the dirty foreign bastards and send 'em to Hell, or running back to their lands?"
If a foreign force invaded to take over the land and were only invading to oppress and kill - such as what Al Qaeda did in Iraq - then yes, anyone would want that.
But if my government were an oppressive dictatorship, I'd be thinking differently.
You should be more nuanced in your examples. You're conflating the US's actions with hostile invasions with the purpose of domination, such as Germany's and the USSR's in WWII. That's simply not applicable to what the US is doing in the Middle East. On the contrary, it's more akin to what the US did to Germany in WWII: Fight a malicious power.
It's too easy to posit the "their invading our home!" as the one that people should have. Again, you need to present more nuanced cases. Your question betrays your bias.
Tibore,
I'm afraid you misunderstand why we're in the Middle East. It's not because "we're trying to help."
"Robert Cook said...
I believe, in addition to these other likely motives, 9/11 gave some in the Bush administration the "new Pearl Harbor" they had been looking for..."
Friendly advice: Please be very careful in using the phrase "new Pearl Harbor". You fully acknowledge that terrorists committed 9/11, so you're obviously not the main breed of truther. But that phrase still trends close to what "Bush Let It Happen On Purpose" branch of truthers love to bring up. The PNAC "New Pearl Harbor" statement is well known to not be an exhortion to seek causes for war, but a warning against letting military technology slack lest the US faces a "New Pearl Harbor".
"... to justify launching a war of economic and political hegemony on the Middle East, at least partly to secure control over access to and management of the oil resources in that part of the world."
That's more trutheristic speech, and contradicted by current events. Namely that such hegemony was never created, and in fact has gone in the opposite direction. Plus, the US being on track to achieve petroleum independence in a decade, and possibly become a net exporter also contradicts the notion.
"Robert Cook said...
Tibore,
I'm afraid you misunderstand why we're in the Middle East. It's not because "we're trying to help."
I understand perfectly why we're in the Middle East, and I agree. We're not there to help. We're there to fight extremism.
The fact that it's been done clumsily does not change that fact.
Robert Cook said...
While you may respond that I am making a cheap shot
It's not a cheap shot Cook. It's a distraction tactic to avoid dealing with the simple facts that (a) we didn't make the distinction between POWs because the left prevented it (with your full support) and (b) you slipped up and made sweeping conclusions of American error when your own arguments have already asserted the facts are unknown.
You do this all the time and in every single instance your errors allow further or deeper criticism of America. Noticing this is not misinterpreting anything. It's noting the single consistent theme holding all your crackpot theories together.
Tibore,
Our military presence in the Middle East is not fighting extremism, but furthering it.
We're there to impose our dominance in the region, a part of our attempt to remain the dominant global power.
"Robert Cook said...
Tibore,
Our military presence in the Middle East is not fighting extremism, but furthering it.
We're there to impose our dominance in the region, a part of our attempt to remain the dominant global power"
Evidence?
jr565 said:
"Except we know things that don't require a court to tell us so. For example the guy on camera talking to the camera man in London with blood all over his hands and a bloody hatchet talking about jihad while a dead decapitated serviceman lies behind him PROBABLY is
Guilty. I don't need a court to tell me as Much."
1) In America, and I suppose in Britain, this man must still be brought before a court with the legal presumption of innocence, requiring that the state prove before a judge or jury that he is guilty. With the video and eyewitness evidence, I don't believe proving this would be difficult, but there remains that requirement.
2) We have no similar evidence regarding the hundreds of men who were imprisoned at Gitmo for years, (or for those remaining there today). To the degree the government may have any evidence against the Gitmo detainees, it either exonerates most of them, or is so lacking that convictions could not be obtained, with the result the government over time has released most of them. So, how do you (or the apparently besotted Marshall) know any of those men to have been armed antagonists of the United States?
Tibore, the evidence is in our actions and in the region of the world where we act.
Robert Cook said...
To the degree the government may have any evidence against the Gitmo detainees, it either exonerates most of them, or is so lacking that convictions could not be obtained, with the result the government over time has released most of them.
This is false. The US decided not to pursue convinctions because revealing their intelligence process would be more damaging than letting everyone go. This decision says nothing about the merits of the evidence against any of the detainees.
Isn't it interesting that every single error of fact and judgement by Cook is to America's detriment? What an amazing string of bad luck that would be if this was mere coincidence rather than a systemic ideological error.
"Robert Cook said...
Tibore, the evidence is in our actions and in the region of the world where we act."
That's rather vague and declarative. It's still not evidence.
Tibore, it may not be proof, but it is evidence.
"The US decided not to pursue convinctions because revealing their intelligence process would be more damaging than letting everyone go."
IF the US ever claimed this--and I do not know if they have--it is entirely self-serving and unverified, rather like saying "I didn't want to play, anyway" and walking away with the ball when one realizes one is going to lose.
Tibore, the evidence is in our actions and in the region of the world where we act.
That's not evidence. That's your argument. Give us some facts to back it up. Like, the fact that we handed over a good chunk of Iraqi oil production to companies tied to countries that opposed our intervention and had had deals with the Hussein regime is evidence that we're not in Iraq to take their oil for ourselves. That's evidence. Here is the fact, and here is the conclusion we can draw from it.
I'm afraid you misunderstand why we're in the Middle East. It's not because "we're trying to help."
Evidence that we are indeed trying to help is that we have boots on the ground trying to deliver aid and help the locals form representative democracies. If it was merely about revenge, we wouldn't have put boots on the ground and we would have left the locals to rot. If we were after happy little US puppets, we would put a McArthur in place rather than try to hand the country back to the locals as soon as possible.
Did we screw some thing up? Yes, we're human. But a look at the evidence... the facts... leads us to a conclusion that's remarkably different than the one your 'evidence' is prejudiced towards.
Perhaps this isn't evidence either, but it is a claim by a Washington insider.
It has also been argued that our invasion of Iraq was intended to prevent Hussein's aim to cease the use of the US dollar as the default currency for trading in oil in favor of the Euro, which could have been highly damaging to us.
Libya, too.
Robert Cook said...
"The US decided not to pursue convinctions because revealing their intelligence process would be more damaging than letting everyone go."
IF the US ever claimed this--and I do not know if they have--it is entirely self-serving and unverified, rather like saying "I didn't want to play, anyway" and walking away with the ball when one realizes one is going to lose.
Once again Cook resorts to "we don't have enough information to undertstand the facts and therefore it is proven that the detainees are largely innocent".
Keep in mind: this is his best argument.
Marshall,
Admit it: you posted that last comment not because you wanted to say anything--you didn't--but because you wanted to make the 100th comment on this thread.
Innocence of many Gitmo detainees known by Bush officials
Isn't it interesting that yesterday Cook asserted we couldn't draw conclusions from reports because maybe the cop murdered an innocent man in front of at least 4 witnesses from various police agencies. But today he quotes a government official as fact. I wonder why the change in evidentiary standards?
Consider that that yesterday's initial report did not reflect America in a bad light, so he grasped at whatever straws he could to attack it. In contrast today's report does cast America in a bad light, so he accepts it on its face and offers it as evidence without comment.
Eventually there are enough data points you don't have to pretend there could be some other innocent explanation.
Marshall,
I did not assert that what Wilkerson says must be true merely because he says it; I offer it as evidence that a close aide to Colin Powell has asserted the government knew many of the Gitmo prisoners were innocent. Also, as far as I have know, no other Washington sources ever disputed his claim, or the legal declaration he filed to that effect on behalf of a habeas request by a lawyer for one of the detainees.
Wilkerson's claim, coupled with the release over time of most of those held at Gitmo, certainly suggests very powerfully that they knew many of these prisoners were innocent, or certainly came to that conclusion at some point. You can deny this or play sophomoric word games if it pleases you or allows you to think of us as the "good guys" of the world, always playing fair and never dirty, but you do not offer compelling refutation.
Also, I did not assert we could not draw conclusions from the FBI agents' claims; I acknowledged that perhaps events went down just as they described. However, I, personally am skeptical. We have had too many law enforcement officers on the local and federal level who, over time, have been involved in suspicious violent and sometimes fatal encounters with suspects and who have glibly claimed self-defense for us to simply accept such claims without suspicion.
In fact, as per the Bill of Rights, and as the founders knew, we should always be suspicious of the state's power, claims, motives, and intentions.
Give it up, Marshall.
I confess to severe disappointment in the "evidence" provided. It doesn't amount to even being an argument in support of Cook's thesis. The Washington Insider cited was the Fed chairman; while undoubtedly a financial policy insider, I'd hardly consider him an insider for foreign policy, and would challenge Cook to establish when exactly Greenspan was in on foreign policy planning.
I'd also challenge Robert to explain why he cited Greenspan's 2007 statement, and ignored his later clarification where he explicitly stated he never said the war was an oil grab, that rather the administration was concerned extended violence would disrupt the oil market and send prices soaring. As well as admitted that he was not part of the foreign policy planning. But of course, it's always easier to just point out the arguments in favor of a stance, and not deal with the complexity of the total context.
And the "thirdworldtraveller.com" link... yes, the old "Petrodollar warfare" conspiracy theory. That America felt Iraq's switchover to the Euro challeneged it's "dollar imperialism" and invaded in order to help prop up our currency. I'll just quote Financial Express and Economic Times editor Swaminathan Aiyar:
"No other OPEC country prices oil in euros, because of the currency risk. But for arguments sake, suppose they do. Will the US suffer? Not really. More countries will want to hold reserves in euros to reduce their currency risk, and rising demand could push up the euro against the dollar. That will make Europe more attractive for foreign investors. But European exporters will complain that a strong euro has made them uncompetitive, hitting production and employment. American exporters meanwhile will be delighted that a weaker dollar has made them more competitive. So a strong dollar or a strong euro is a mixed blessing for the countries concerned. It helps attract foreign investment but also damages exports, production and employment. That is why the US and Europe leave it to markets to decide the exchange rate.
The fact that most world trade is designated in dollars does not make the US strong. Rather, the strength of the US economy leads people to designate trade in dollars. The very humdrum aim is to reduce risks of currency fluctuations. No conspiracy theory is needed to explain this."
Robert is citing a lot of conspiracy theory, but not a whole lot of actual facts. Linking to a "Petrodollar warfare" thesis (one absolutely devoid of actual support, BTW; that link was nothing but assertion)... letting slip the phrase "New Pearl Harbor"... and using the old conspiracy theorist tactic of citing a prior statement and ignoring later context correcting incorrect impressions about the statement. None of this is evience. All of it is soapboxing. I'm disappointed that no evidence has been provided to support the original contention, but at least we can see that his sources are not original, but rather claims predigested by conspiracy peddlers for use by conspiracy pushers. If nothing else, the exchange has been illuminating.
"For the first time in about 30 years, Western oil companies are exploring for and producing oil in Iraq from some of the world's largest oil fields and reaping enormous profit."
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा