OK, when I saw this headline, I have to admit that I thought "See that? Another faulty terrorist case! Looks like the USG can't catch a real terrorist to save their lives."
Then I realized, that's not what this story is about. According to that article at Bloomberg.com, it turns out that "The U.S. dropped charges against the alleged mastermind of the bomb attack on the USS Cole while the Obama administration considers how to handle terrorist suspects detained at Guantanamo, the Defense Department said."
Wait--WHAT?
Because Obama wants to close Gitmo charges were dropped?
That makes no sense. That's like saying: "Well, I'm thinking about buying a car, might as well send my current car to the junk yard!"
Noooo, see, just because putting these guys on trial under military law is unfair, it doesn't mean charges should be dropped and they should go free--I mean, who ever said this? Obama never said "let's free everyone at Guantanamo" did he?
So why have charges against the Cole Bombing mastermind being dropped?
Maybe it IS a case of the USG not being able to catch a terrorist, after all?
old thepete.com blog
moral compass online since 1998
Thursday, February 5, 2009
Cole Bombing Charges Dropped--What the Hell?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Read moar:
ReplyDelete"Charges against Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri were dropped without prejudice, which would allow the government to reinstate them later, Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell said late yesterday."
Second paragraph.
akshuly in yr screen grab. read moar.
ReplyDeleteHow does that change my point?
ReplyDeleteIn my example above, that'd be like saying: "I'm thinking about buying a car, might as well send my current car to the junkyard (but I reserve the right to buy it back from the junkyard should I choose to do so when people tell me I look like an ass for taking it there in the first place.)"
To me, it sounds like just a BS excuse to avoid being honest.
Oh and thanks for the double post and the lolcatspeak. Nothing like being lectured by someone who chooses to avoid plain old English.
Dear sir:
ReplyDeleteYou should perhaps consider reading for comprehension in the future, rather than allowing your knee-jerk response to a headline, coupled with your a priori conclusions vis-a-vis the "war on terror" to cloud your otherwise impeccable judgement.
Paragraph three of the article to which you link:
"The government was facing a deadline of Feb. 9, when al- Nashiri’s arraignment was scheduled to take place at the U.S. naval base at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba. The trial judge refused to suspend the arraignment, even though President Barack Obama last month ordered a 120-day suspension of all legal proceedings against Guantanamo detainees."
Our beloved President requested a suspension of the arraignment, and the judge refused, which was a decision well within the judge's power to make. In order to comply with the Chief Executive's wishes, the prosecution took action, and dropped the charges without prejudice.
Or, in deference to your areas of expertise, the prosecution hit the "pause" button.
I do hope this meets with your approval.
kthxbye
Hey, you might try being polite on someone else's blog. Ever think of that?
ReplyDeleteYour rudeness aside, I still don't see how any of this changes my point. They can have all of the excuses in the world, it still won't change the fact that suspension of proceedings equals just that--dropping charges also equals just that. One may seem like a reasonable defense on the surface, but in my mind it is not.
You don't let the guy out on the street just because the trial can't continue as planned. What if he *is* guilty as (un)charged?
And why you can't simply say "I think their reasoning makes perfect sense, I disagree with you." is beyond me.
I suppose it's the Internet, where accusing others of kneejerk reactions in the form of a kneejerk reaction is par for the course. Also, here on the Internet, it's easier to pick a fight than it is to just move on (or to bother to make sure your argument is sound in the first place).
thx for teh lulz You take urself too srs. srsly.
ReplyDeleteIf I don't... WHO WILL??
ReplyDeleteHmmm?
Since Obama’s earnest drive to convince the nation to weaken its economic strength through redistribution as well as weaken its national defense, have confirmed the very threats to our Republic’s survival that the Constitution was designed to avert, it no longer is sustainable for the United States Supreme Court and Military Joint Chiefs to refrain from exercising WHAT IS THEIR ABSOLUTE CONSTITUTIONAL DUTY TO DEFEND THE NATION FROM UNLAWFUL USURPATION. The questions of Obama’s Kenyan birth and his father’s Kenyan/British citizenship (admitted on his own website) have been conflated by his sustained unwillingnes to supply his long form birth certificate now under seal, and compounded by his internet posting of a discredited “after-the-fact†short form ‘certificate’. In the absence of these issues being acknowledged and addessed, IT IS MANIFEST THAT OBAMA REMAINS INELIGIBLE TO BE PRESIDENT UNDER ARTICLE 2 OF THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION. Being a 14th Amendment “citizen†is not sufficient. A “President†MUST BE an Article 2 “natural born citizen†AS DEFINED BY THE FRAMERS’ INTENT.
ReplyDeleteWow, Ted - way to sweep in and make Pete seem sensible!
ReplyDeleteYou've met yr wingnut match, Pete! CAGE FIGHT! CAGE FIGHT!
Obama birth certificate=epic lulz
tee-hee. Good stuff, that.
ReplyDeleteI don't know, Gadfly, he's making you look sensible, too. ;)