Obama's Christmas Day Bomber Lie

[FarmallMTA]

So DHS has to know about defendants being tried in the federal court system? We've been trying terrorists in federal courts for decades. Why would we need to debate it now? It's essentially the default course of action and it's directly mirrored by the Richard Reid case.

Much ado about nothing. Just a bunch of partisan nitwits finding an excuse to rant.

What is it with you people that you don't understand that a sworn political enemy of the United States, not in uniform, tried to kill over 300 innocent men women and children?

He's an foreign enemy combatant, not in uniform, and so not subject to US civilian laws, period. He's a foreign TERRORIST ununiformed soldier, not a US jaywalker!

 

[leftysergeant]

He's an foreign enemy combatant, not in uniform, and so not subject to US civilian laws, period. He's a foreign TERRORIST ununiformed soldier, not a US jaywalker!

And....?

 

[joobz]

What is it with you people that you don't understand that a sworn political enemy of the United States, not in uniform, tried to kill over 300 innocent men women and children?

He's an foreign enemy combatant, not in uniform, and so not subject to US civilian laws, period. He's a foreign TERRORIST ununiformed soldier, not a US jaywalker!

Perhaps you can point to the section in the constitution where it makes the distinction?

 

[willhaven]

What is it with you people that you don't understand that a sworn political enemy of the United States, not in uniform, tried to kill over 300 innocent men women and children?

He's an foreign enemy combatant, not in uniform, and so not subject to US civilian laws, period. He's a foreign TERRORIST ununiformed soldier, not a US jaywalker!

Tell that to the previous administrations that tried and convicted terrorists in the same manner.

Bush tried every potential terrorist apprehended in the US by the same means. Richard Reid, Moussaui, etc. Bush tried hundreds of potential terrorists caught in and outside of the US in US federal courts (NOT tribunals). Bush tried 3 in tribunals. To my recollection, 2 were let go, and the 3rd was an Australian who spent 6 months in prison for material support and was repatriated afterward.

This is not a new precedent.

So why all the outrage now? Either you're:
1) Being misled by the chorus of morons.
2) Holding a double standard against Obama when previous presidents have done the exact same thing.
3) Both.

[edit] I just read up on some of the previous tribunals. From what I'm reading, the Aussie was sentenced to 7 years, but got 9 months. Two others had spent years in detention and only ended up serving a few more months and were released. By contrast, John Walker Lindh ("American Taliban" tried in civilian court) got a 20 year sentence.

http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsme...unals_really_tougher_than_criminal_courts.php[/edit]

 

[BeAChooser]

Tell that to the previous administrations that tried and convicted terrorists in the same manner.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/p...errorists-held-in-U_S_-prisons_-83588677.html

"The Bush administration used the criminal justice system to convict more than 300 individuals on terrorism-related charges," writes Attorney General Eric Holder in a new letter to Republican critics in Congress. The letter is part of the Obama administration's aggressive defense of its decision to grant full American constitutional rights to al Qaeda soldier Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the accused Christmas Day bomber. That defense boils down to one sentence: Bush did it, too.

Republicans on Capitol Hill object. They argue that one of the reasons some terrorists were handled in the criminal justice system is that it took George W. Bush and Congress years to establish a military tribunal system that satisfied constitutional requirements -- a process that was lengthened by legal challenges filed by some of the same lawyers who now work in Holder's Justice Department.

You can argue about that forever. But there's one serious factual debate going on about Holder's letter, and that concerns those "300 individuals." Just who are they?

It turns out some lawmakers have been trying for months to get an answer. They're not saying the claim is false -- they just want to see what it's based on. But so far they haven't been able to find out.

Perhaps another lie by the Obama team?

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

What is it with you people that you don't understand that a sworn political enemy of the United States, not in uniform, tried to kill over 300 innocent men women and children?

He's an foreign enemy combatant, not in uniform, and so not subject to US civilian laws, period. He's a foreign TERRORIST ununiformed soldier, not a US jaywalker!

We've gone over this again and again.

The rights of the accused guaranteed in the Bill of Rights does not apply only to U.S. citizens (or only to civilians).

I've given several solid arguments on this point.

First, where the Constitution means citizens (or U.S. citizens) it uses the term citizen; where it means a larger set, it uses appropriate terms such as persons or the accused. In a couple of cases, it uses the words person and citizen in the same sentence such that it's obvious citizens are a subset of persons.

Second, many of the rights in the Bill of Rights are expressed as a limitation on government and not as rights that could feasibly pertain to any specific group of people. For example, it's absurd to think that Congress should be allowed to establish a church for any group of non-citizens.

Finally, Boumediene v. Bush specifically addressed this issue and found that the Gitmo detainees are entitled to the rights of the accused (specifically habeas corpus). There are other cases that point out that citizenship is not what gives someone access to the rights of the accused.

As to the issue of the status of enemy combatant: a "foreign enemy combatant" status is not an accusation of a crime. In that case, the detainee would be a POW. In the cases in question, the status is usually "illegal enemy combatant" (which specifically removes the protections of POW status). The "illegal" part of that status means they are indeed accused of breaking the law. As such, they are entitled to the rights of the accused.

The only way to get what you're after is to repeal or severely amend key parts of our Bill of Rights. I'll ask you what I've been asking BaC: why do you hate our freedoms?

 

[BeAChooser]

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/politicizing-intelligence

Politicizing Intelligence

… snip …

Last week, a little more than 24 hours after the FBI warned senators not to disclose the sensitive information that Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab was cooperating with the FBI, the White House shared the information with the news media.

An indignant Christopher “Kit” Bond, the ranking Republican on the Senate Intelligence Committee, immediately wrote to President Obama, complaining that he had been told by FBI Director Robert Mueller that the cooperation of the Nigerian terrorist who tried to bomb a Northwest passenger jet over Detroit was extremely sensitive information and was to be kept quiet. It was so sensitive, in fact, that the entire committee wasn’t briefed, just Bond and the committee chairman Dianne Feinstein.

At the White House briefing Thursday afternoon, Press Secretary Robert Gibbs attacked Bond for politicizing intelligence and haughtily demanded an apology: “No briefing is done here or anywhere in this administration where classified information is used in a place where it shouldn’t be,” Gibbs said. “And I would suggest that somebody that alleges that, when they know it doesn’t happen, owe people an apology.”

… snip …

But Gibbs explained that the White House felt the need to provide background briefings about what Abdulmutallab was now saying in order to “contextualize” the information after receiving inquiries from reporters.

So Gibbs is saying that releasing secret information to reporters for *background context* is a place where it should be released? He has got to be kidding.

When are you Obama supporters going to tire of the non-stop lies and amateur-hour incompetence coming from the Obama administration? Hmmmm?

 

[willhaven]

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/p...errorists-held-in-U_S_-prisons_-83588677.html



Perhaps another lie by the Obama team?

Nope, it's true. This link has a synopsis of many of these cases and often has scanned court documents of the actual indictments.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

What is it with you people that you don't understand that a sworn political enemy of the United States, not in uniform, tried to kill over 300 innocent men women and children?

He's an foreign enemy combatant, not in uniform, and so not subject to US civilian laws, period. He's a foreign TERRORIST ununiformed soldier, not a US jaywalker!

Also, if we waive due process or the rights of the accused, how do we know "he's a foreign enemy combatant" or "a sworn political enemy of the United States"?

KingMerv said it best on one of these threads. This is my paraphrase (based on my very faulty memory): if all we have to do is accuse someone and we don't need to follow the rules and present evidence, then all these lawyers have wasted a great deal of time in law school.

 

[joobz]

When are you Obama supporters going to tire of the non-stop lies

I am tired of your non-stop lies. Why would you think that I wouldn't be?

 

[BeAChooser]

Nope, it's true. This link has a synopsis of many of these cases and often has scanned court documents of the actual indictments.

Did you look closely at that synopsis? It consists of:

6) 6 people (Mohammed Salameh, Nidal Ayyad, Mahmud Abouhalima Ahmad Ajaj, Ramzi Yousef and Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman) who were sentenced to life in the 1993 WTC bombing. Presumably they are still in jail.

-) Abdel Jabbar Hamdan who was released in 2006. (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5620739 )

-) Abousfian Abdelrazik*who is living in canada (and not in jail)

-) Adnan el-Shukrijumah*who is still at large.

-) Ali Abdul-Karim Farhat and Hassan Farhat, who were arrested for cocaine distribution (not terrorism).

-) Ali Hasan Abu Kamal who killed himself during his act of terrorism.

-) a lawsuit (Ashton vs al Qaeda Islamic Army) filed against 3 islamic organizations that put no one in jail.

-) a lawsuit filed by the parents of David Boim who was killed in a Hamas attack on the west bank which put no one in jail.

-) Cedric Carpenter and Lamont Ransom who were convicted 2005 of selling false documents to members of a terrorist group. Since Ransom's sentence was only 29 months he's undoubtedly a free man. Carpenter's sentence was 63 months, which given the time already served at the time of conviction may mean he's also now out of prison.

-) a lawsuit filed by victims of a Hamas attack that put no one in jail.

-) a lawsuit by victims of 9/11 against the Saudi government that put no one in jail

7) Ghazi Ibrahim Abu Maizar convicted in 1999 of plotting to explode a bomb in a New York Subway. Life in prison so I assume he's still there.

-) a treasury press release regarding a terrorist organization (sorry, no one is in jail as a result)

-) Hamaas Abdul Khaalis (somewhat of a cult figure and with no apparent affiliations with foreign terrorist groups) and 11 other armed men seized buildings and murdered hostages in Washington DC in 1977 (not 1997 as your link indicates). When they finally surrendered, all were charged then freed on their own recognizance (believe it or not). All were later tried and convicted with Khaalis receiving a sentence of from 21 to 120 years. However, Khaalis died in prison in 2003. The other 11 who all received similar lengthy sentences (http://middleeast.about.com/od/religionsectarianism/f/me090310a.htm ) may or may not be in prison at this time … 33 years later. You know how that works. In any case, it's kind of hard to call this a terrorist case to justify Holder's claim since it's difficult to imagine Holder including this case in his list of terrorists that we still have in jail. If he did, he must be dredging the bottom of the barrel to arrive at his 300 number.

-) Hatem Fariz pled guilty to assisting the PLO. He was sentenced to 37 months back in mid 2006, so with that date he must already be out of prison.

-) Hesham Mohamed Hadayet who killed tow Israelis at LA Airport, then was himself killed.

-) a lawsuit against another terrorist sponsoring organization (Holy Land Foundation) that put no one in jail but blocked it's assets.

12) Bayan Elashi, Ghassan Elashi, Basman Elashi, Hazim Elashi, and Ihsan Elashyi who were convicted of laundering money for Hamas and received sentences from 4 to 7 years back in 2004-5. Ghassan Elashi and two of his brothers were later convicted and sentenced in a second trial to even longer prison terms. I imagine all 5 are still in US jails.

-) a lawsuit brought against Iran by family members killed at Khobar Towers. No one went to jail.

-) a lawsuit against the Islamic Center of Tuscon. No one went to jail.

-) Ismail Selim Elbarrasse arrested because his wife videotaped the Chesapeake Bay Bridge from their SUV. No one in jail.

-) Jamil Abdullah al-Amin is a black panther member found guilty in the murder of a sheriff deputy. Hard to imagine Holder labeling this a terrorist.

-) lawsuit against another islamic charity, KindHearts. No one went to jail.

-) Majid Mahummud al-massari deported and not in jail.

13) Muhammad Salah and Abdel Haleem al-Ashqar were indicted and sentenced for Hamas related racketeering in 2004. Salah was sentenced to 21 months and is now free, Ashqar was sentenced to 11 years. Presumably he's still in prison.

-) Mir Aimal Kasi killed 2 CIA employees outside Langley. Convicted and sentenced to death. Executed 2002 so not in jail.

-) Mohammad Momin Khawaja found guilty of a foiled bomb plot in Britain. Sentenced to 10 years and 6 months in 2009 IN CANADA.

-) lawsuit against insurance company AIG for promoting Sharia law and charities. No one went to prison.

14) Naveed Haq guilty of first degree murder in 2006 shooting at a Jewish organization building in Seattle. Life sentence but do you really think Holder is labeling this terrorism given the Obama administrations reticence to even use the word terrorism? But what the heck, I'll give you this one.

-) lawsuit against CAIR. No one went to prison.

-) lawsuit against the Palestinian authority. No one went to prison.

-) lawsuit against the PLO and PA. No one went to prison.

-) description of a memo related to terrorism. No one went to prison.

-) Raed Hajazi convicted in absentia IN JORDAN, caught and sent to a Jordan prison.

-) lawsuit about requiring visitors from arab countries and North Korea to register. No one went to prison.

-) suit by professor against Homeland Security over revocation of his US visa. No one went to prison.

15) Rashid Baz attacked van full of jewish boys. Convicted and sentenced to 141 years in prison. I'll give you this one too.

-) lawsuits by americans wounded in Hamas attacks against terrorist organizations. No one in jail as a result.

-) lawsuit against the SAAR network. No one in jail.

-) Safia Jilani charged with making a false police report about a masked gunman she said assaulted her. Not terrorism or in jail.

-) lawsuit against the PLO. No one went to jail.

-) Houssein Zorkot charged with carrying a dangerous weapons with unlawful intent. He received probation, not jail (http://www.debbieschlussel.com/4135...w-ak-47-goes-free-may-be-medical-doc-in-mich/ ).

16) Abdulhakem Mujahid Muhammad shot 2 soldiers in Arkansas and charged with murder and terrorist acts in 2009. I bet he's in jail.

17) Taheri-Azar drove jeep into crowd of students. Sentenced to 33 years in prison.

-) lawsuit against Lebanese banks. No one in prison.

-) Akram Musa Abdallah plead guilty to making false statements to the FBI in 2009. Under supervised release (i.e., not in prison).

18) Rahmat Abdhir indicted for providing support to terrorist. In jail awaiting trial it appears.

19) Nurandin Abdi sentenced to 10 years in 2007 for conspiracy to blow up mall.

-) Mohadar Mohamed Abdoulah charged with lying on application for political asylum, not terrorism.

-) Abdow Munye Abdow in October 2009 charged with making false statements to the FBI, not terrorism, even though the case appears related to terrorism. He's free awaiting trial.

20) Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab chared with Christmas bombing

21) Ahmed Omar Abu Ali convicted of providing material support to al-Qaeda and attempting to assassinate the President. Sentence to 30 years.

22) Hassan Abu Jihaad sentenced to 10 years in 2009 for supporting terrorism

-) Babar Ahmad indicted in 2004 on conspiracy to aid the Talaban. Presently in a British prison.

25)Zubair Ahmed and Khaleel Ahmed pled guilty to providing terrorists material support in 2009. Both in prison.

27) Syed Ahmed and Ensanul Islam Sadequee charged with aiding terrorists. Sentenced to 13 and 17 years in prison.

28) Syed Talha Ahsan charged with maintaining jihadist websites and aiding Babar Ahmad. Case pending in the US.

-) 11 Dearborn Michigan people charged with racketeering related to cigarette smuggling scheme that helped Hizballah. In January 2004 Mohamed Akhdar, the ringleader, got a 70 month sentence. So by now he and the others are out of jail.

-) Sami Al Arian pled guilty in 2006 to helping the Palestinian Islamic Jihad. Sentenced to 57 months but given credit for time served so only had to serve 19 months. Then subpoenaed to testify in another grand jury. Received to testify and charged with criminal contempt. Under house arrest awaiting trial (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sami_Al-Arian ).

-) Al-Badawi indicted for role in USS Cole bombing. Tried for same in Yemen and sentenced to death in 2004. Escaped from Yemen prison and currently at large.

-) Sami Omar Al Hussayen, charged with helping Hamas and jihadists in 2004. Acquited of all charges and deported. Not in jail.

-) Sheik Mohammed Ali Hassan Al-Moayad and Mohammed Mohsen Zayed charged with aiding al-Qaeda and Hamas. Pled guilty and judge sentenced them to time served and deported them.

-) Saleh Al Suwailem, charged with threatening to place explosive on plane. Charges dismissed and he was released in 2006 (http://new.accessnorthga.com/detail.php?n=120237 ).

29) Ali Al Timini convicted of inciting terrorist activity and sentenced to life in 2005

-) Muthanna Al-Hanooti accused of spying for Iraq under Saddam Hussein. Not terrorism related.

- lawsuit against al Haramain Islamic Foundation and two employees for bank fraud, tax evasion and money laundering. The trials still going on and from what I can gather the two employees are free on bail.

OK, I tire. I'm almost a third of the way through the link's summary and the total number of terrorists in US jails in that third looks to be 29. So using that as a sample, I'll predict the total is around 100 for the whole list. If so, you still have several hundred to account for.

Now you don't suppose Holder and the rest of the incompetents in the Obama administration are getting their claim of 300 terrorist now in jail from this:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/nation/dojstats/full330.html

June 12, 2005

330 Suspects Charged

 

[joobz]

OK, I tire. I'm almost a third of the way through the link's summary and the total number of terrorists in US jails in that third looks to be 29. So using that as a sample, I'll predict the total is around 100 for the whole list. If so, you still have several hundred to account for.

Perhaps you can explain your logic here because i don't see it. All you've done is confirm that our court system is capable of trying and convicting terrorists. You help argue against your self.

Now, if your point is that it's not 100% effective, well....duh. But 100% doesn't exist and you know that. Instead, you seem to suggest that we error on the side of excessive conviction, which goes against everything America is supposed to represent.

 

[willhaven]

Did you look closely at that synopsis? It consists of:

And military tribunals since 9/11 have put only a few people in prison. All of them for less than a year (after their previous years of detention).

The Australian was sentenced to 7 years (I think) and did 9 months.

The civilian system gets a higher percentage of convictions (90%+), longer sentences, it's also faster and isn't straddling a legal gray area.

Even at an estimated hundred, that's still dozens more than were tried in the tribunals.

 

[BeAChooser]

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/o...eading-Abdulmutallab-his-rights-83760942.html

Republican lawmakers are denying a charge made by top White House counterterrorism official John Brennan that they were briefed about -- and did not object to -- the decision to offer full American constitutional rights to accused Detroit bomber Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab.

On "Meet the Press," Brennan said that on Christmas night, just hours after Abdulmutallab tried to blow up Northwest Airlines flight 253, Brennan called GOP Senators Mitch McConnell and Christopher Bond, as well as Republican Representatives John Boehner and Peter Hoekstra, and told them that Abdulmutallab was in FBI custody. "None of those individuals raised any concerns with me at that point," Brennan said. "They didn't say, Is he going into military custody? Is he going to be Mirandized?"

Each of the lawmakers strongly denies Brennan's account. A spokesman for McConnell says, "During a brief call from the White House, Sen. McConnell was given a heads up that Abdulmutallab was in custody, but little else. He wasn’t told of the decision to Mirandize Abdulmutallab."

A spokesman for Boehner says, "On an unclassified/non-secure call to Boehner's cell phone that was very short, John Brennan informed Boehner that Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab was in custody. The call imparted no other substantive information and Brennan did not inform Boehner that the administration had read Abdulmutallab his Miranda rights." And Bond released a statement saying that Brennan "never told me any of plans to Mirandize the Christmas Day bomber -- if he had I would told him the administration was making a mistake."

In a conversation Sunday afternoon, Hoekstra, the ranking Republican on the House Intelligence Committee, angrily denied Brennan's statement. The possibility of Mirandizing Abdulmutallab "never came up" in a call that Hoekstra describes as a "quick update." Hoekstra recalls Brennan calling between 7:00 p.m. and 8:00 p.m. on Christmas, which would have been before Abdulmutallab was informed of his rights. "I think I talked to Brennan before they did it," Hoekstra says. "He could have told me that, and asked me what I felt about it -- but he didn't."

Hoekstra says if Brennan had brought up the subject of Miranda rights, then he, Hoekstra, would have discussed the issue with legal counsel from the Intelligence Committee. "If Brennan had called and said, 'Congressman, we're contemplating a legal strategy here,'" Hoekstra says, "the first thing I would have done is call up…my legal counsel and some other people and said, 'Hey, is this a sound strategy or not?' It never came up."

So it looks like we have another Obama administration lackey lying about what happened with regards to the Christmas Bomber. Tell me Obama supporters, when are you finally going to tire of the stench of lies emanating from the Obama administration on this and a dozen other issues? When will you finally say enough is enough?

 

[joobz]

I'm curious as to where in that quoted text Brennan's quote was refuted?
Nothing that followed the quote contradicted that quote.

 

[BeAChooser]

Brennan's claim:

I explained to them that he was in F.B.I. custody. That Mr. Abdulmutallab was in fact talking. That he was cooperating at that point. They knew that in F.B.I. custody means that there's a process then you follow as far as mirandizing and presenting him in front of the magistrate.

Let's see.

Brennan claims that the bomber was in "FBI custody" AND TALKING. They admit that the suspect was interrogated by the FBI for 50 minutes before he was mirandized and told them a lot during that interrogation. He went silent only after he was mirandized. So by Brennan's own admission, he was considered to be "in custody" BEFORE he was mirandized. Thus, being in custody is not the same as being mirandized. It wasn't automatic like he claims. Someone in Washington (supposedly Holder) had to make a conscious decision to mirandize the man. Holder could have chosen not to mirandize him and he would still have been "in FBI custody". I think Brennan is playing word games here. Redefining "is", so to speak.

 

[willhaven]

He should have been Mirandized immediately. If the FBI took him into custody without reading him his rights, then they screwed up. Reading Abdulmutallab his Miranda rights isn't granting him something he didn't have before, it's simply informing him of the rights he has inherently when being interrogated or tried in our court system.

One would reasonably assume that someone being interrogated in FBI custody would have already been read their Miranda rights.

 

[joobz]

Brennan's claim:



Let's see.

Brennan claims that the bomber was in "FBI custody" AND TALKING. They admit that the suspect was interrogated by the FBI for 50 minutes before he was mirandized and told them a lot during that interrogation. He went silent only after he was mirandized. So by Brennan's own admission, he was considered to be "in custody" BEFORE he was mirandized. Thus, being in custody is not the same as being mirandized. It wasn't automatic like he claims. Someone in Washington (supposedly Holder) had to make a conscious decision to mirandize the man. Holder could have chosen not to mirandize him and he would still have been "in FBI custody". I think Brennan is playing word games here. Redefining "is", so to speak.

I still don't see evidence of a lie. You would need to show that he KNEW they weren't mirandized upon taken into custody. Otherwise, it seems more likely that he was wrong about how the FBI handled this. I am curious to know if FBI have a policy on mirandizing before interrogations or not. Seems like they should.

 

[BeAChooser]

You would need to show that he KNEW they weren't mirandized upon taken into custody.

LOL! I see. Now your defense is that Brennan wasn't aware that the bomber wasn't mirandized when they first took him into custody, even though it had been all over the news that the bomber was interviewed by the FBI for 50 minutes BEFORE he was ever mirandized.

 

[joobz]

LOL! I see. Now your defense is that Brennan wasn't aware that the bomber wasn't mirandized when they first took him into custody, even though it had been all over the news that the bomber was interviewed by the FBI for 50 minutes BEFORE he was ever mirandized.

So? Are you saying that the only logical conclusion for someone misrepresenting what was in the news is that that person lied?
Does this also apply to people who intentionally quote mine news pieces to make it seem like a politician lied?