Politics: J'accuse!

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

In a surprising* twist to this saga, all charges against Army Chaplain James Yee have been dropped.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/15/national/15MUSL.html



* surprising if you didn't see it coming from oh say about three states over.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
We gave radical Islam another cause, and Moslems everywhere another reason to resent us. We're making a (brutal, totalitarian) regime that was no friend of radical Islam into a failed state that will be much more conducive to it. We've alienated our friends around the world, whose cooperation we need.

You need to be careful on the outing front. We now know, at least, that you're Spanish.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by bilmore
You need to be careful on the outing front. We now know, at least, that you're Spanish.

That's funny. Criticizing President Bush is unamerican. What a laugh riot you are.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
We diverted resources that could have been used to combat terrorism.

How? I'm not aware we are pulling punches anywhere. There really isn't a need for 100K troops anywhere is there?

We gave radical Islam another cause, and Moslems everywhere another reason to resent us.

Many Iraquis around here like that this happened- they're mostly moslems. I don't know that the "radicals" need another reason. Remember polls from years ago where huge percentages of the population of, as an example, SA just despise us.

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by bilmore
You need to be careful on the outing front. We now know, at least, that you're Spanish.

Careful. You'll lose Slave as an ally if you admit Ty is binding authority like that.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
Read the end of Clarke's book, where he explains why invading Iraq is a bad idea. Then get your news for a couple of days from somewhere other than LGF and FOX.

We diverted resources that could have been used to combat terrorism. We gave radical Islam another cause, and Moslems everywhere another reason to resent us. We're making a (brutal, totalitarian) regime that was no friend of radical Islam into a failed state that will be much more conducive to it. We've alienated our friends around the world, whose cooperation we need. That's for starters.

Last I checked, there have been no more attacks on US soil. How is that a fuck up?

I agree that the last couple of weeks in Iraq have been bad, but things seem to be getting under control. Fallujah is cooling down and Sadr's forces are being put down. Iraq is being rebuilt and moving on a path toward democracy. How is that a fuck up?

I also agree that the attack in Madrid was a terrible tragedy, but you cannot blame that on the US.

So I don't understand how you can claim we are fucking up the war on terror.

[baltassoc]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
If your point is that the French were supporting bad people, what do you make of the fact that John Negroponte, with his record of support for -- or, at the very least, willfully turning a blind eye to -- Honduran death squads, is the leading contender to be the ambassador to Iraq?

Ty, Ty, Ty, you poor misguided man. Your argument here is fundamentally flawed. Have you forgotten that the actions of the administration of Saint Reagan, especially in Latin America and the Middle East, are beyond reproach?

They were facist death squads, but at least they weren't communists. Give that man a medal.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Sexual Harassment Panda
In a surprising* twist to this saga, all charges against Army Chaplain James Yee have been dropped.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/15/national/15MUSL.html



* surprising if you didn't see it coming from oh say about three states over.

from the article:
The military dropped all the criminal charges in March, citing national security concerns that would arise from the release of evidence against him.


And they weren't dropping "charges" now- they were dropping "convictions" for some minor crap. Maybe all they accomplished was getting him out, and putting him on notice.

I was thinking that an answer for Bush to the "mistake" q. would have been to say
"Well we held some people in captivity who later turned out to be harmless, and we held them for years. I feel bad about that, and surely it was a "mistake" as to each such individual. But, I don't think the policy of erring on the side of holding suspects who might be innocent is an err compared to the alternative of not holding someone who is dangerous."

Let the jackels knaw on that one, that's what I'd have done.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by bilmore
You need to be careful on the outing front. We now know, at least, that you're Spanish.

Spanish is the new French, right?

Why the Spaniards don't understand how the war in Iraq made them all safer from terrorism is a mystery, I'll agree.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
from the article:
The military dropped all the criminal charges in March, citing national security concerns that would arise from the release of evidence against him.

Speaking of the threat to national security when evidence is released in criminal trials, this article is enlightening:

"The Intelligence Mess: How It Happened, What to Do About It" by Andrew C. McCarthy, a former chief assistant U.S. attorney in New York, who led the 1995 terrorism prosecution of Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman in connection with the first World Trade Center bombing.

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/ar...aid=11704013_1

The fecklessness of meeting terrorist attacks with court proceedings—trials that take years to prepare and months to present, and that, even when successful, neutralize only an infinitesimal percentage of the actual terrorist population—emboldened bin Laden. But just as hurtful was the government’s promotion of terrorism trials in the first place. They were a useful vehicle if the strategic object was to orchestrate an appearance of justice being done. As a national-security strategy, they were suicidal, providing terrorists with a banquet of information they could never have dreamed of acquiring on their own.

Under discovery rules that apply to American criminal proceedings, the government is required to provide to accused persons any information in its possession that can be deemed "material to the preparation of the defense" or that is even arguably exculpatory. The more broadly indictments are drawn (and terrorism indictments tend to be among the broadest), the greater the trove of revelation. In addition, the government must disclose all prior statements made by witnesses it calls (and, often, witnesses it does not call).

This is a staggering quantum of information, certain to illuminate not only what the government knows about terrorist organizations but the intelligence agencies’ methods and sources for obtaining that information. When, moreover, there is any dispute about whether a sensitive piece of information needs to be disclosed, the decision ends up being made by a judge on the basis of what a fair trial dictates, rather than by the executive branch on the basis of what public safety demands.

It is true that this mountain of intelligence is routinely surrendered along with appropriate judicial warnings: defendants may use it only in preparing for trial, and may not disseminate it for other purposes. Unfortunately, people who commit mass murder tend not to be terribly concerned about violating court orders (or, for that matter, about being hauled into court at all).

In 1995, just before trying the blind sheik (Omar Abdel Rahman) and eleven others, I duly complied with discovery law by writing a letter to the defense counsel listing 200 names of people who might be alleged as unindicted co-conspirators—i.e., people who were on the government’s radar screen but whom there was insufficient evidence to charge. Six years later, my letter turned up as evidence in the trial of those who bombed our embassies in Africa. It seems that, within days of my having sent it, the letter had found its way to Sudan and was in the hands of bin Laden (who was on the list), having been fetched for him by an al-Qaeda operative who had gotten it from one of his associates.

Intelligence is dynamic. Over time, foreign terrorists and spies inevitably learn our tactics and adapt: consequently, we must refine and change those tactics. When we purposely tell them what we know—for what is blithely assumed to be the greater good of ensuring they get the same kind of fair trials as insider traders and tax cheats—we enable them not only to close the knowledge gap but to gain immense insight into our technological capacities, how our agencies think, and what our future moves are likely to be.

Some of our best information is obtained from foreign intelligence services. Naturally, those services are much less forthcoming if they think that what they tell us will have to be revealed in court because of U.S. legal rules. Historically, that was not much of a problem when dealing with the CIA; it is, however, always a concern for a country weighing whether to share some sensitive or potentially embarrassing information with the FBI. The Saudis’ infamous obstruction of the FBI’s efforts to investigate the 1996 Khobar Towers bombing is an exquisite example.

In the Clinton years, no matter how many times we were attacked, all the world knew that our approach was to have the FBI build criminal cases. Indeed, Presidential Decision Directive (PDD) 39, issued in June 1995, announced that prosecuting terrorists and extraditing indicted terrorists held overseas were signature priorities of the administration. Nearly three years later, after several other attacks and public declarations of war by bin Laden, Clinton issued a press release that both trumpeted as a ringing success his strategy of having terrorists "apprehended, tried, and given severe prison sentences" and announced a new directive, PDD 62. This purported to "reinforce the mission of the many U.S. agencies charged with roles in defeating terrorism,"including by means of the "apprehension and prosecution of terrorists." The embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were bombed less than three months later.

[Did you just call me Coltrane?]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Spanish is the new French, right?

Why the Spaniards don't understand how the war in Iraq made them all safer from terrorism is a mystery, I'll agree.

It's much easier to criticize when you have a giant ocean as a buffer...

[SlaveNoMore]

Tyrone_Slothrop
If Richard Clarke has taught us anything, it's not that Condi Rice would have been introduced to the idea of planes as missiles if she went to B. Dalton for her briefings, it's that you can discredit any principled objection to Bush policy by pointing to a profit motive.

I'm sure a lot of them saw "Black Sunday" back in the day, but I'm fairly certain every administration from Carter to W didn't actually anticipate and prepare for blimps full of explosives.

Halliburton made lots of money with Iraq. Where does that lead you? I think it's a dead end, but you seem to think this profiteering is pretty interesting.

Was the country of Halliburton dangling their veto on the UN Security Council?

[SlaveNoMore]

bilmore
You need to be careful on the outing front. We now know, at least, that you're Spanish.

I have it on good authority from the waiters at Plouf that Ty is actually Belgian (and FWIW a big tipper)

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
I have it on good authority from the waiters at Plouf that Ty is actually Belgian

So are French fries. Coincidence? I don't think so.


What the hell are we talking about again? (I thought it was how the US continued to support Saddam despite knowing that he had used chemical weapons to massacre thousands of Kurds -- is that not it?)

[SlaveNoMore]

Sidd Finch
Why the Spaniards don't understand how the war in Iraq made them all safer from terrorism is a mystery, I'll agree.

Why you seem think it made them more succeptible to terrorism is even more of a mystery.