HAHAHAHAHA...
But I kid the the guy who managed to eek out a win tighter than any president in recent memory...
The point is, if you so much as suggest that you're thinking about doing something bad to a certain someone in a certain big house that is white you can get investigated and possibly worse.
Enter Ahmed Omar Abu Ali, who, as reported in [http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/3479308.html|an article] from WaPo available over at Chron.com, has recently been convicted of plotting to kill Bush and also of aiding Al Qaeda. Dude faces life in prison. Here's the ironic part--for most of the above-linked article, the reporter lets us know that Ali was found guilty--but not why he was found guilty.
In the seventh paragraph down (out of twelve) we finally learn that:
Prosecutors said he had confessed to his Saudi jailers that he joined an al-Qaida cell in the kingdom and was determined to kill Bush by shooting him on the street or blowing him up with a car bomb.
So far so reasonable. However, the article immediately continues with:
Law enforcement sources have said the plot to kill Bush never advanced beyond the talking stage.
So, is the "talking stage" officially the same as the "planning stage"? My wife and I are planning on catching Syriana on Thursday, but are we really planning on it if we haven't even picked the showtime we're going to see? Hell, we might not even go. The point is, we're just talking about it.
I can talk about doing a lot of things, like writing another novel or going to Japan, but am I planning on doing those things? Not really, despite the fact that I'm serious about doing both.
The point is, this Ali guy is just talking shit or whatever, but doesn't really have a clue about how he's going to do it. He doesn't have a gun or suppliers or even a date picked. How can he be found guilty of a crime he hasn't committed? Sure, it's illegal to threaten a president's life--but should we send a man to jail for life for threatening the president?
I don't think so.
However, if he had a shopping list with bullets, a gun, a map of Washington DC with the White House circled, NOW we're talking a threat.
Of course there's another wrinkle to this story that the article finally goes into the eighth paragraph:
Abu Ali said the confession was false and was beaten out of him by the Saudis, who whipped him on his back so hard it turned bloody. His lawyers portrayed him as a polite kid from Northern Virginia who went to Saudi Arabia only to pursue religious studies.
UH-OH! Looks like it's TORTURE-TIME, AGAIN!
Of course, the article doesn't mention anything about Ali providing proof (or not) of the beatings--like showing scars, or anything like that.
The final four paragraphs of the article go like this:
Khurrum Wahid, an attorney for Abu Ali, indicated that he would appeal.
"Obviously, the jury has spoken, but the fight is not over," he said. "We plan to continue to use the justice system to pursue our client's innocence."
Members of Abu Ali's family, who attended nearly the entire 2 1/2 -week trial, declined to comment.
The trial, along with an earlier hearing that examined Abu Ali's claims of torture, revolved around the confession prosecutors said he gave to his Saudi jailers. Saudi security officers testified via videotape from Saudi Arabia, insisting that Abu Ali was well treated and confessed willingly.
Yeah. He confessed willingly.
WHY THE HELL WOULD HE DO THAT??
Surely he wasn't expecting leniency from the Saudi Arabian Justice System--the same people who brought us public beheadings in the street.
Oh yeah, and there was absolutely no mention in the article about how Ali actually did the "providing material support to al-Qaida" part. Good job, WaPo!!
No comments:
Post a Comment