PDA

View Full Version : Hard Ball doing a flip-flop?



pooltchr
05-04-2006, 05:36 PM
Did any one catch Chris Matthews talking about the life sentence decision, laughing and joking about how much he would enjoy seeing him locked up with a bunch of good old all-American criminal types, just to get what he deserved?

Isn't this the same Chris Matthews who was so upset about our Military "torturing" the enemy??????????????

I guess it's ok for criminals, but not for the military....or maybe it's ok to torture a convicted terrorist, but not one that hasn't been through a trial yet.

/ccboard/images/graemlins/confused.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/confused.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/confused.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/confused.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/confused.gif
Steve

hondo
05-05-2006, 06:24 AM
I was against torture til I started watching 24
and now I realize the necessity of it. Thanks, Jack
Bauer.

pooltchr
05-05-2006, 06:44 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote hondo:</font><hr> I was against torture til I started watching 24
and now I realize the necessity of it. Thanks, Jack
Bauer. <hr /></blockquote>

Jack! Love your show...when are you going to cut the heart our of someone??????

Seriously, that is one of the best drama type shows on television.
Steve

Gayle in MD
05-05-2006, 07:11 AM
Hi Steve,
From what I've been hearing, his incarceration would be complete, IOW, alone, in a cell, with absolutely no human contact, even with gaurds. Food to be slid through one opening, and retrieved through the interrior opening, pretty much considered solitary confinement.

I think there's a difference between what convicts do in a prison, and what our government stands for, don't you? It could be that Mathews, generally considered to be a republican, is against torture as policy, but like some Americans who want revenge, even if it is against someone other than those who actually attacked us, take pleasure from the possibility of torture in return for 9/11.

I'm wondering, what your opinion of our Government holding the two high level terrorists, who actually planned, and help execute 9/11, in secret locations, for this long, and never bringing them to justice. One of the wives of a 9/11 victim spoke about this, and contends that we can never bring them to justice, because the President and Vice President would then have to answer to war crimes, (torture) and be subject to investigations through the court system which would expose them.

BTW, have you ever read any of George Bush's signing statements? After signing the McCain's anti-torture bill, he waited until all others had left the room, and added a signing statement which said, he reserved the right to ignore the anti-torture law. He has signed 176 of these, ignoring the law. Do you think he has the right to ignore the law?

Do you ever wonder, have we become our enemy? He often speaks of the horrors of the axis of evil, yet he reserves the right to practice evil himself. If torture isn't evil, what is?

Gayle in Md.

pooltchr
05-05-2006, 08:07 AM
Gayle,
We have already covered the torture thing pretty much on here, and I really didn't want to bring that up again. As for the facts, you are correct. In actuality, he will have very limited contact with any other humans while he is in prison.
My point was more how someone could come out against torture, and then make jokes and laugh about how someone might end up "getting just what they deserve" at the hands of other criminals while in prison. Just seems like a double standard on his part...bad when it happens in a military conflict...but ok if it happens to someone in prison.

Personally, I think they should shower him in pig's blood, and then shoot him...take away his 72 virgins before he dies....but give him a couple of years after the shower so he can think about what he will be missing.
Steve

Gayle in MD
05-05-2006, 08:29 AM
I think what has happened to him is horrible enough. Personally, I'd rather be dead than living that life.

As for Mathews, my point was that being against a government policy for torture, is different. However, I'm a human being first, against any torture of any kind. I was wondering if you thought torture to be evil.

Gayle in Md,

Qtec
05-05-2006, 08:42 AM
Ignore the guy's confession because he is clearly deranged.

Give me one single piece of evidence that ties him to 9/11. Anybody?

Q

Gayle in MD
05-05-2006, 08:56 AM
He's mentally ill, as is his whole family. He's just being used as a distraction tactic, a scape goat, if you will. He'll be the first man to spend his life in jail, who never killed anyone, and was jailed for life because he hates America.

Gayle in Md.

Fran Crimi
05-05-2006, 09:57 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Qtec:</font><hr> Ignore the guy's confession because he is clearly deranged.

Give me one single piece of evidence that ties him to 9/11. Anybody?

Q <hr /></blockquote>

Depends on what you mean by "ties him to 9/11." Did he actively take part? Obviously not since he was already incarcerated at the time.

However: 57 Hours of flight school training, and according to the flight school instructor, he said:

"Do you realize that a 747 loaded with fuel can be used as a bomb?' "

Does it really matter that he didn't graduate? So we should ignore his confession that he knew about 9/11? I think there's enough evidence to back up his claim of knowing about 9/11.

As long as this guy is alive he will always be a threat because in spite of how secure we may think he is, there is always the chance that he could get out. How? Who knows? Earthquake, some act of nature, some terrorists bomb the prison.

Just remember: This guy will think nothing of getting involved in wiping out an entire city if he could.

Imagine terrorists kidnapping Americans overseas and demanding his release, you know...just for the fun of it.

And we let him live. Unbelieveable.


Fran

Lester
05-05-2006, 10:11 AM
Fran wrote:

Depends on what you mean by "ties him to 9/11." Did he actively take part? Obviously not since he was already incarcerated at the time.

However: 57 Hours of flight school training, and according to the flight school instructor, he said:

"Do you realize that a 747 loaded with fuel can be used as a bomb?' "

Does it really matter that he didn't graduate? So we should ignore his confession that he knew about 9/11? I think there's enough evidence to back up his claim of knowing about 9/11.

As long as this guy is alive he will always be a threat because in spite of how secure we may think he is, there is always the chance that he could get out. How? Who knows? Earthquake, some act of nature, some terrorists bomb the prison.

Just remember: This guy will think nothing of getting involved in wiping out an entire city if he could.

Imagine terrorists kidnapping Americans overseas and demanding his release, you know...just for the fun of it.

And we let him live. Unbelieveable.

%%%%%%%%%

Good Point.

Deeman3
05-05-2006, 10:40 AM
There will be a left wing movement to free him within 5 years. He will become the darling of the talk show/buddies with actors and be lionized by the very same people he would love to kill.

Q, one piece of evidence linking him to 9/11? His testimony about helping plan these attacks. I say we send him to Holland where he can be better understood.

Deeman

hondo
05-05-2006, 11:53 AM
I agree, Fran. Lord knows we had to convict SOMEBODY.



<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Fran Crimi:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote Qtec:</font><hr> Ignore the guy's confession because he is clearly deranged.

Give me one single piece of evidence that ties him to 9/11. Anybody?

Q <hr /></blockquote>

Depends on what you mean by "ties him to 9/11." Did he actively take part? Obviously not since he was already incarcerated at the time.

However: 57 Hours of flight school training, and according to the flight school instructor, he said:

"Do you realize that a 747 loaded with fuel can be used as a bomb?' "

Does it really matter that he didn't graduate? So we should ignore his confession that he knew about 9/11? I think there's enough evidence to back up his claim of knowing about 9/11.

As long as this guy is alive he will always be a threat because in spite of how secure we may think he is, there is always the chance that he could get out. How? Who knows? Earthquake, some act of nature, some terrorists bomb the prison.

Just remember: This guy will think nothing of getting involved in wiping out an entire city if he could.

Imagine terrorists kidnapping Americans overseas and demanding his release, you know...just for the fun of it.

And we let him live. Unbelieveable.


Fran
<hr /></blockquote>

Fran Crimi
05-05-2006, 12:01 PM
[ QUOTE ]
I agree, Fran. Lord knows we had to convict SOMEBODY.
<hr /></blockquote>

Oh c'mon. Get real. Why do you think this guy took 57 hours of flying lessons?

Fran Crimi
05-05-2006, 12:46 PM
Deeman, do you know what the real shame is in this whole thing?

This was before the Patriot Act:

"On August 16, 2001, Moussaoui was arrested by Harry Samit of the FBI in Minnesota and charged with an immigration violation. Some agents worried that his flight training had violent intentions, so the Minnesota bureau tried to get permission to search his laptop computer, but they were turned down. Other materials he had when he was arrested included two knives, 747 flight manuals, a flight simulator computer program, fighting gloves and shin guards, and a computer disk with information about crop dusting.

Leading in that research was agent Coleen Rowley who made an explicit request for permission to search Moussaoui's personal rooms. This request was first cut down by her boss, Deputy General Counsel Marion "Spike" Bowman and later on rejected based upon FISA regulations (amended after 9/11 by the USA PATRIOT Act). Several further attempts failed the very same way. As a result, the chance of finding early evidence passed unused."

Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zacarias_Moussaoui)

Fran

pooltchr
05-05-2006, 07:02 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Fran Crimi:</font><hr> Deeman, do you know what the real shame is in this whole thing?

<hr /></blockquote>

Fran,
Something else that is a shame is the motivation of the jurors. They didn't decide life or death based on his level of involvement in the planning of the attacks, they didn't decide based on which would be a greater punishment for the individual, they FELT SORRY FOR HIM because he came from a disfunctional family and didn't have a "good" childhood! The victim mentality in this country is totally out of control. These people have vowed to do whatever they can to destroy our way of life, and we try to understand them! I still think the shower of pig blood so he can't even dream of his flock of virgins, followed by a year or two in a cell, maybe even letting him listen to Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson 24/7, then tie his butt in a remote controled aircraft and let him go out the way he wanted to.....crash and burn!
Steve

Fran Crimi
05-06-2006, 06:13 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Something else that is a shame is the motivation of the jurors. They didn't decide life or death based on his level of involvement in the planning of the attacks, they didn't decide based on which would be a greater punishment for the individual, they FELT SORRY FOR HIM because he came from a disfunctional family and didn't have a "good" childhood! The victim mentality in this country is totally out of control. These people have vowed to do whatever they can to destroy our way of life, and we try to understand them! <hr /></blockquote>


Steve,

You know...Moussaui actually got off the hook because he got caught prior to 9/11. It's hideous to think he was any less involved than the others, or for that matter, any more derranged than the others. The jury somehow lost sight of that.

Fran

Gayle in MD
05-06-2006, 06:21 AM
Steve writes... [ QUOTE ]
<hr /></blockquote> letting him listen to Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson [ QUOTE ]
<hr /></blockquote>

Hey, he'd probably love that...there's loads of crazy people who do that everyday! LOL /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

I think it's important to remember that we were not privey to the same exposure to this story as the jury was. I think it's clear the man is nuts, and will live a horrible life, worse than death, if you ask me, and we should be proud that our country gave him a trial, attorney's, and a jury. What I'd like to know is why haven't we brought the two who masterminded 9/11 to trial? We do have them, you know, somewhere, and we couldn't be keeping them in order to get any more tortured revelations out of them after they have been out of the loop for this long. I think it is a disgrace that we haven't brought them in and provided the some real closure for the survivors, don't you?

Gayle in Md.

DickLeonard
05-06-2006, 10:52 AM
Hondo what the Hell is 24?####

pooltchr
05-06-2006, 05:41 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote DickLeonard:</font><hr> Hondo what the Hell is 24?#### <hr /></blockquote>

24 is the absolute best drama show on television. Monday nights at 9pm...but you will have to break down and tune in to FOX to see it.
Steve

Gayle in MD
05-07-2006, 02:51 AM
Steve, this is just a correction of my post, the president has used signing statements over 750 times....an unprecedented action by a president, used to place himself above the law, the Constitution, and the Congress and Senate. Does this concern you? I had said 176...but ithe number is over 750 times....also, just wondering, again, if you think that torture, is evil, and also if you see anything wrong with the president signing a bill, like McCain's anti torture bill, in front of the cameras, and then waiting for all to leave the room and signing a statement that he doesn't intend to abide by what he just signed into law.

Gayle in Md.

Qtec
05-07-2006, 06:56 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Deeman3:</font><hr> There will be a left wing movement to free him within 5 years. He will become the darling of the talk show/buddies with actors and be lionized by the very same people he would love to kill. <font color="blue">And a vote for kerry is a vote for Al Q. Yeah right, heard it all before. </font color>

Q, one piece of evidence linking him to 9/11? His testimony about helping plan these attacks. I say we send him to Holland where he can be better understood. <font color="blue"> Like I said, there is no evidence to connect him to 9/11. If there was, the jury would have given him the death sentence.
If only he had confessed to killing Kennedy as well then another mystery would have been solved. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif</font color>

Q

Deeman <hr /></blockquote>

Qtec
05-07-2006, 07:49 AM
web page (http://www.reason.com/links/links033006.shtml)

[ QUOTE ]
There is also the curious Bureau flip-flopping on Moussaoui and his laptop. Back in November 2001 the FBI dropped Moussaoui from the 9/11 plot. In his place the Bureau put Ramsi Binalshibh, as part of the hijacking team that crashed United Airlines Flight 93 into a field in Pennsylvania.

FBI Director Robert Mueller back then also told prosecutors that there was no information on the computer seized from Moussaoui that linked him to the September 11 attacks. At that same time, Rolince himself was not convinced that Moussaoui was tied to 9/11, saying "Whoever that fifth person was is probably still alive. Clearly we are looking into the pool of people who crossed paths with the hijackers." Only sometime later did that someone become Moussaoui and his un-searched info.

While Samit <font color="blue"> the FBI officer who made the arrest] </font color> was spending a solid three weeks trying to get Washington to act on his pre-9/11 terror fears, future 9/11 hijacker Hani Hanjour was raising suspicions with his flight training in Phoenix (suspicions Samit was not told about until after 9/11). Margaret Chevrette of the Pan Am International Flight Academy reported her worries to the FAA and somehow those concerns also made their way to CIA chief Tenet and into CIA memos of August 2001, but the FBI never acted on them. Yet on September 12, FBI agents interviewed Chevrette for more information on Hanjour—reflecting the fact that another local FBI agent (Arizona-based Kenneth Williams, author of the July 2001 Phoenix memo) had notified FBI headquarters of the danger posed by Middle Eastern terrorists training at U.S. flight schools.<hr /></blockquote>


The Phoenix memo.
memo (http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0412042phoenix1.html)

If you read the article, you will see that Semit did some investigative work on his own and recieved info on M from French Intel signaling M as a risk. Despite him sending 70 emails to Washington, they refused to do anything. Other agents were also ringing the alarm bell but got the same response.
GW gets a Pres Briefing saying 'Osama determined to attack the US'. A frantic FBI agent who has a confirmed Islamic sympathiser in custody- who just happens to be taking taking flying lessons- and who talks about using planes as weapons and nobody wants to know?

If M had any conection to 9/11, the Govt would have announced it on 9/12. As you can see, they did the exact opposite.

The prosecution wants the death penalty and the defense! wants the death penalty! M wanted to die a martyr. The plain truth is that niether HE nor the prosection could convice the jury that he was guilty! And that in a case where not one single American has any sympathy at all for him. The jury deserves a medal.

Q

Gayle in MD
05-07-2006, 08:15 AM
I agree, Q., and also think that the jury sure didn't want to give him his choice, which was to die a martyr, and I think the judge said something about that, ... that his eventual death would go un-noticed by the world, years from now. I'd be so much happier if we were discussing the trial of the real killers, the ones the government has hidden away, especially since the survivors of those who lost their lives have stated over and over that they want them tried, and many feel this big deal over Mousssoui was just a distraction from the other two, who actually planned and arranged for the money.

Gayle in Md.

Gayle in Md.

Fran Crimi
05-07-2006, 12:44 PM
"Founded in 1968, Reason <font color="blue"> [ the website you referenced </font color>] advances a free society by developing, applying, and promoting libertarian principles, including individual liberty, free markets, and the rule of law."

<font color="blue">Libertarian, eh, Q? Did you find this on your own? You reading libertarian stuff now, Q? </font color>


Okay, I read the complicated, convoluted article that you referenced. I swear, some people want to make things so complicated and so convoluted that they miss the plain and simple facts staring them right in the face.

He took 70 hours of flight lessons.
Muhammad Atta visited the same school. Coincidence?
He spoke about using jumbo jets as missiles prior to 9/11. What private citizen could have possibly conceived of that prior to 9/11?

He told us he was involved.

Let's believe him.

It's very simple and very clear. This was our opportunity to put down a very dangerous man who is unquestionably a threat to our country.

C'mon Q. Why did he take flying lessons? Why did he talk about using a jumbo jet as a missile? What's your theory on that? Instead of referencing libertarian websites, use your own mind.

Fran

Qtec
05-08-2006, 08:15 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Fran Crimi:</font><hr> "Founded in 1968, Reason <font color="blue"> [ the website you referenced </font color>] advances a free society by developing, applying, and promoting libertarian principles, including individual liberty, free markets, and the rule of law." <font color="red"> Traitors! /ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif </font color>

<font color="blue">Libertarian, eh, Q? Did you find this on your own? You reading libertarian stuff now, Q? </font color>
<font color="red"> Fran I dont even know what Libertarian means. I,ll have to look it up! /ccboard/images/graemlins/laugh.gif
All I did was a google looking for a summary of the M case. I picked that site purely at random. I could give you other samples that say the same thing in the mainstream press. </font color>


Okay, I read the complicated, convoluted article that you referenced. I swear, some people want to make things so complicated and so convoluted that they miss the plain and simple facts staring them right in the face.

He took 70 hours of flight lessons. <font color="red"> So he wanted to learn to fly. </font color>
Muhammad Atta visited the same school. Coincidence? <font color="red"> Its alleged the Atta or someone posing as Atta visited the same school. </font color>
He spoke about using jumbo jets as missiles prior to 9/11. <font color="red"> Exactly! What kind of undercover suicide bomber DELIBERATLY draws attention to himself? Its hardly 007 stuff! </font color> What private citizen could have possibly conceived of that prior to 9/11? <font color="red"> Anyone with an imagination. </font color>

He told us he was involved. <font color="red"> He also said he wasnt! The Govt said he wasnt.</font color>
Let's believe him. <font color="red">OK. /ccboard/images/graemlins/laugh.gif </font color>

It's very simple and very clear. This was our opportunity to put down a very dangerous man who is unquestionably a threat to our country.

C'mon Q. Why did he take flying lessons? Why did he talk about using a jumbo jet as a missile? What's your theory on that? Instead of referencing libertarian websites, use your own mind.

Fran <hr /></blockquote>

How about this Fran, just using pure logic- dont laugh /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif- I will explain what is wrong with this whole thing.

1. If he was part of 9/11 he would have been able to easily convince the jury that he should die- which is what he wanted. All he had to do was reveal one bit of evidence linking him to 9/11 that the US doesnt have [ and the Govt doesnt have anything to link him!] but he couldnt.

He said originally that he was part of a 2nd wave attack but what chance would he have of carrying out his plans when after 9/11 every flight school would be checked and he would be picked up.
Lets not forget that he only had his first lesson on a simulator barely 4 weeks before 9/11. A guy who after 57 hours of flying lessons and is classed as 'incompetent' has just a few weeks to learn how to fly a jumbo jet!
If you are asking me to believe that whoever planned an operation such as 9/11- that the Govt says was 'years'in the planning- would jeopordise the whole thing by sending a KNOWN deranged Islamic sympathiser[sp] to the USA with $35,000 in his pocket to take flying lessons....I cant.

That only leaves the obvious. Its as plain as day. M was supposed to get caught.

Anyone can take flying lesons, thats no big deal. Its only when M went to the PanAm school to train on the simulator that he really drew attention to himself- by paying $7,000 in cash, after making the initial deposit by credit card?
Sounds more like Mr Bean than James Bond.!!

Q. How can I draw attention to myself?
A. Easy. just walk into any shop/club/poolhall/flying school and put a large amount of cash on the counter!!!!!!!!!!!
Or, Tell your instructor that a plane loaded with fuel would make a great weapon!






Q

Fran Crimi
05-08-2006, 12:46 PM
To tell you the truth, Q, I don't even know how to respond to you. So he just wanted to learn to fly??? Are you kidding???

So, he has a good imagination??? That's all you can come up with as to why this guy is talking about using planes as missiles? Please say you're kidding around.

As for the libertarian stuff, I could be wrong but I don't think you'd want to be one of those. I'd also suggest that you check the source of your information before you reference it to others.

Regards,
Fran

Qtec
05-08-2006, 06:59 PM
Fran, I never said the guy was innocent. There is no doubt that M believed he was taking flying lessons so that he could later be part of a 9/11 style attack. But was M supposed to take part in 9/11? I dont think so.
IMO, M is guilty of belonging to a terrorist organisation and of conspiracy. Although he was planning to, he hadnt yet killed anyone nor had he committed a crime in the US. To get the death penalty verdict, the Govt had to prove that M had info that could have prevented the 9/11 attack but they couldnt.

Q

Gayle in MD
05-09-2006, 04:39 AM
Yes or no will do. Do you think torture is evil???

Gayle in Md.

Gayle in MD
05-09-2006, 04:48 AM
Hi Fran,
I was just wondering, do you think alQaeda took this man seriously, and would have involved him in an actual attack, or given him any information about an impending attack, before it happened, or do you think he had delusions of granduer, was a wannabe terrorist, and was mentally ill?

Gayle in Md.

Gayle in MD
05-09-2006, 04:51 AM
Just wondering, do you think torture is an act of evil? Yes or no will do.

Also, do you think Mousssoui was mentally stable, and would have been trusted by alQaeda as a confidant, previous to an impending attack?

Gayle in Md.

Gayle in Md.

pooltchr
05-09-2006, 06:11 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr> Just wondering, do you think torture is an act of evil? Yes or no will do.

Also, do you think Mousssoui was mentally stable, and would have been trusted by alQaeda as a confidant, previous to an impending attack?

Gayle in Md.

Gayle in Md. <hr /></blockquote>

Sorry it took me so long...my mother had surgery and I have had more important things to take my time than the internet.
I think I would classify torture as sometimes a "necessary evil". No, it is not a good thing, but under some circumstances, such as to save innocent lives, it can become the only option.

Do I think M was mentally stable? Hell, I don't think any terrorist is mentally stable. Would they have trusted him? Well, birds of a feather....
In my opinion, they are all nuckin futz, so I can't begin to guess who they might or not trust.
Steve

Qtec
05-09-2006, 07:10 AM
here is a report in May 2002.

[ QUOTE ]
http://foi.missouri.edu/foiintelligence/fbiagentsayssup.html

By James Risen
The New York Times
May 25/02

WASHINGTON, May 24 — "A senior F.B.I. agent in Minneapolis has accused a supervisor at the agency's Washington headquarters of altering a report in a way that made it impossible for investigators to obtain crucial evidence in the case of Zacarias Moussaoui, the so-called 20th hijacker, before the Sept. 11 attacks on New York and Washington, government officials said today.

Coleen Rowley, an agent and counsel in the F.B.I.'s Minneapolis field office, wrote in a 13-page letter received this week by the joint Congressional committee investigating the terrorist attacks that changes in the search warrant application made it all but impossible to convince the F.B.I.'s national security lawyers to pursue court authorization for the search. The identity of the supervisor at F.B.I. headquarters mentioned in Ms. Rowley's letter could not be determined.

Officials who have seen Ms. Rowley's letter say it accuses the supervisor of altering the application to play down the significance of information provided by French intelligence officials about Mr. Moussaoui's links to Islamic extremists.

Mr. Moussaoui, a French citizen of Moroccan descent, was arrested in Minnesota on Aug. 16 on immigration-related charges after an employee of a local flight school notified the F.B.I. that he was acting suspiciously while taking flight lessons. F.B.I. agents in Minneapolis repeatedly questioned Mr. Moussaoui in late August, and one F.B.I. agent accused him of being a terrorist. But the F.B.I. did not obtain a search warrant to examine his computer and other belongings until after the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon."

"Mr. Moussaoui has since been indicted on charges connected with the attacks.


According to Ms. Rowley's letter and other bureau officials, the Minneapolis field office believed that the French report on Mr. Moussaoui provided enough troubling information about his ties to Islamic extremism to go to court to obtain a search warrant under the federal law that allows the government to carry out searches and surveillance in espionage and terrorism cases. Under the statute, investigators do not have to show that a subject committed a crime, only that they have reason to believe the suspect is engaged in terrorist activity or espionage on behalf of a foreign power or a terrorist organization. <font color="red"> No Patriot Act needed here. </font color>


But headquarters officials did not believe the French report was sufficient to justify a search warrant. F.B.I. officials said today that the French report showed that Mr. Moussaoui was an Islamic extremist, but did not reveal any direct links to specific terrorist groups. The French report revealed that Mr. Moussaoui had a close friend who had fought and died with Islamic separatist fighters battling the Russians in Chechnya, but F.B.I. headquarters believed that connection was too indirect to link Mr. Moussaoui to terrorism.

Officials at the Central Intelligence Agency have also played down the significance of the French information, saying that it did not provide conclusive proof of Mr. Moussaoui's terrorist ties."

<hr /></blockquote>

In the summer of 2001, the US was getting reports of an impending attack by Al Q from Intel agencies all over Europe and from many other sources.
The Pheonix memo warns specifically of possible ME terrorists training in US flight schools and we have an FBI agent sending 70 emails, pleading for something to be done, being continually stonewalled!

Incompetence?

If we believe the FBI, M had no links to Al Q and no links to 9/11.
If we ignore the conffession of an unbalanced man, on what basis should he be condemmed to death?
What crime has he committed?


Q

Fran Crimi
05-09-2006, 07:35 AM
I can't believe you keep referencing article after article with the same rhetoric...they had the chance to uncover the attack and they blew it. And the NY Times no less....sheesh.

The applicable term is 'opportunity cost'. It's the cost of not being able to have the opportunity to do something, in this case immediate access to Moussaui's property. You can guess all you like, Q, but there's no way you can ever state that it wouldn't have mattered had they had access to Moussaui's things early on. That would be ridiculous to do.

You can go on and on and on about all they didn't do and how incompetent they were and so on, but they were denied access when they needed it. That is a FACT and that may have made all the difference in the world as to the way they proceeded from there.

Fran

Fran Crimi
05-09-2006, 09:14 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Qtec:</font><hr> Fran, I never said the guy was innocent. There is no doubt that M believed he was taking flying lessons so that he could later be part of a 9/11 style attack. But was M supposed to take part in 9/11? I dont think so.
IMO, M is guilty of belonging to a terrorist organisation and of conspiracy. Although he was planning to, he hadnt yet killed anyone nor had he committed a crime in the US. To get the death penalty verdict, the Govt had to prove that M had info that could have prevented the 9/11 attack but they couldnt.

Q
<hr /></blockquote>

The death penalty determination has two phases. The first phase is to determine eligibility. In Moussaoi's case, it was proven and decided that he had caused the death of at least one person on 9/11, thus he was eligible for the death penalty.

The second phase was not supposed to be about questioning whether or not he was involved in 9/11. Yes, the extent of his involvement could have been an issue for discussion. But not whether or not he was involved. That was already decided.

That's why there wasn't a question on the jury's question sheet to answer regarding whether or not he was involved in 9/11. The jury literally wrote-in their own question. They should not have done that. It was beyond their jurisdiction to decide that.

I think if that was the only issue holding them back from deciding on the death penalty, the judge would have called them on it, however, their sympathy regarding his abusive upbringing was a separate issue, thus even without their -written-in question, they would have disallowed the death penalty.

I think that's the only reason the judge allowed the jury's decision to stand. Either that or the judge was a socialist.

Everything else with regard to his supposed non-involvement in 9/11 is nothing more than editorializing because the case had ALREADY BEEN DECIDED.

And I agree with the decision. He was involved.

Fran

Gayle in MD
05-10-2006, 04:59 AM
Sorry about your Mother, hope she has an easy recovery...

So what's your opinion of the over 750 signing statements, to avoid abiding by the laws?

Gayle in Md.

pooltchr
05-10-2006, 08:56 AM
Gayle,
You are asking me to pass judgement on something without having all the facts. What exactly did the statements say? What was the content of the documents they were attached to? There may well be a valid reason for the statements. Without having all the facts, we don't know whether it was a good decision or not.

If I asked you whether it was a good idea for me to sign a dozen blank checks, what would your first thought be? Probably that it isn't a smart thing to do. If I added that they were for my wife to pay the monthly bills with, that changes things. It might be a good idea to get the bills paid.
You can't make an intelligent judgement on the actions of anyone without knowing the complete circumstances surrounding those actions. To say that these 750 statements were to avoid the law is making a blanket statement without knowing what you are really talking about. Maybe 749 of them were the right thing to do, and maybe 1 wasn't. We don't know, so I will not jump to judgement.
I can't assume something is wrong just because I do or don't like the person doing it
Steve

Gayle in MD
05-10-2006, 11:56 AM
Sorry, I didn't know you weren't up on the subject. Since his actions are unprecedented, no president has ever utilized signing statement in order to put a waiver into passed legislation, I thought you might be aware of what he has done. If you'er interested at all, I'm sure you could google George W. Bush/signing statements...I had posted some info about this, and a web address, guess you weren't around at that time...

sorry,

Gayle In Md.

pooltchr
05-10-2006, 12:17 PM
But do you have the specifics????? What exactly was said on these signing statements, and what specific legislation were they attached to?
Steve

Gayle in MD
05-11-2006, 11:18 AM
Well, there are so m any of them, over a hundred and seventy-six, so they are about many many things, such as, not abiding by the McCain Bill, FISA, certain laws about Congressional Oversight, quite a range. The interesting part, IMO, is that, IIRC, only a few presidents have ever added signing statements, and when they have, they were used only to add clarity to their understanding of the bill, not to say that they wouldn't abide by the law, and I think the most number of times any one president has used them, and very very few have, they had only done so about five times in their entire administration. IOW, unprecedented in terms of the numbers, and the usage.

Gayle in Md.
Will try to get something more complete later...just going by my memory right now, which isn't what it used to be...