• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Charges dropped against suspect in USS Cole bombing

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
(CNN) -- The U.S. government has dropped charges against Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, the suspect in the bombing of the destroyer USS Cole, according to a Pentagon spokesman.
Parents and friends at the funeral in 2000 for a sailor killed during the bombing of the USS Cole.

The charges were dropped "without prejudice" by Susan Crawford, convening authority at the U.S. prison camp at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, according to Pentagon spokesman Cmdr. Jeffrey Gordon.
 

Tam

Well-known member
Wonder what the families of the soldiers that lost their lives thought about this. Some said this might happen when the Judge decided to defy Obama and move forward with the trial. I hope Obama has to face the military families and explain why this happened :roll:
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Tam said:
Wonder what the families of the soldiers that lost their lives thought about this. Some said this might happen when the Judge decided to defy Obama and move forward with the trial. I hope Obama has to face the military families and explain why this happened :roll:

If you don't have the evidence- you can't go forward with a trial- and under our US Constitution- written by our forefathers years ago- everyone has a right to know the charges against them and a trial..

As for our common defense, we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals. Our founding fathers ... our found fathers, faced with perils we can scarcely imagine, drafted a charter to assure the rule of law and the rights of man, a charter expanded by the blood of generations. Those ideals still light the world, and we will not give them up for expedience's sake.
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
Did you bother to read the link? Obama might start proceedings again later.

What a waste of resources, he was going to trial Monday. Now they're going to start all over?
 

Tam

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
Tam said:
Wonder what the families of the soldiers that lost their lives thought about this. Some said this might happen when the Judge decided to defy Obama and move forward with the trial. I hope Obama has to face the military families and explain why this happened :roll:

If you don't have the evidence- you can't go forward with a trial- and under our US Constitution- written by our forefathers years ago- everyone has a right to know the charges against them and a trial..

As for our common defense, we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals. Our founding fathers ... our found fathers, faced with perils we can scarcely imagine, drafted a charter to assure the rule of law and the rights of man, a charter expanded by the blood of generations. Those ideals still light the world, and we will not give them up for expedience's sake.

Oldtimer when has the US ever given Constitution rights to a war combattants? From what I just heard it's NEVER HAPPENED so why should a Gitmo Terrorist that bombed US soldiers on a US SHIP get Constitutional rights ?

Oh if the Constitution is important to you NOW then why aren't you asking to see Obama's Birth Certificate to see to it that he qualifies to sit as President???
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Tam said:
Oldtimer said:
Tam said:
Wonder what the families of the soldiers that lost their lives thought about this. Some said this might happen when the Judge decided to defy Obama and move forward with the trial. I hope Obama has to face the military families and explain why this happened :roll:

If you don't have the evidence- you can't go forward with a trial- and under our US Constitution- written by our forefathers years ago- everyone has a right to know the charges against them and a trial..

As for our common defense, we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals. Our founding fathers ... our found fathers, faced with perils we can scarcely imagine, drafted a charter to assure the rule of law and the rights of man, a charter expanded by the blood of generations. Those ideals still light the world, and we will not give them up for expedience's sake.

Oldtimer when has the US ever given Constitution rights to a war combattants? From what I just heard it's NEVER HAPPENED so why should a Gitmo Terrorist that bombed US soldiers on a US SHIP get Constitutional rights ?

Oh if the Constitution is important to you NOW then why aren't you asking to see Obama's Birth Certificate to see to it that he qualifies to sit as President???

Most the experts- including those advising the US military say they should not be considered WAR or COMBATANTS or SOLDIERS------they are International Criminals and should be treated as such...In order to try criminals you need charges- and evidence....

Altho Bush/Cheney couldn't go that way when the advisors came out with that advice- because much of the international community has declared them and members of the Administration the same for violating International Law-- the reason the State Dept has advised many of the Administration not to travel abroad...
 

Tam

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
Tam said:
Oldtimer said:
If you don't have the evidence- you can't go forward with a trial- and under our US Constitution- written by our forefathers years ago- everyone has a right to know the charges against them and a trial..

Oldtimer when has the US ever given Constitution rights to a war combattants? From what I just heard it's NEVER HAPPENED so why should a Gitmo Terrorist that bombed US soldiers on a US SHIP get Constitutional rights ?

Oh if the Constitution is important to you NOW then why aren't you asking to see Obama's Birth Certificate to see to it that he qualifies to sit as President???

Most the experts- including those advising the US military say they should not be considered WAR or COMBATANTS or SOLDIERS------they are International Criminals and should be treated as such...In order to try criminals you need charges- and evidence....

Altho Bush/Cheney couldn't go that way when the advisors came out with that advice- because much of the international community has declared them and members of the Administration the same for violating International Law-- the reason the State Dept has advised many of the Administration not to travel abroad...

Please provide a quote from these experts that think this group of terrorist that bombed US landmarks and military ships and have killed thousand of innocent US citizens should not be considered combatants. I believe once they boarded those planes on 9/11 THEY waged war on the US and THEY should be considered war combatants with NO Constitutional rights from the country THEY attacked.

And since I found nothing that says the State Dept has advised many of the Administration not to travel abroad could you please provide a quote from the State Dept. backing this comment. As Hillary is planning a trip abroad and I would hate to see anything happen to her :wink:
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Tam said:
Oldtimer said:
Tam said:
Oldtimer when has the US ever given Constitution rights to a war combattants? From what I just heard it's NEVER HAPPENED so why should a Gitmo Terrorist that bombed US soldiers on a US SHIP get Constitutional rights ?

Oh if the Constitution is important to you NOW then why aren't you asking to see Obama's Birth Certificate to see to it that he qualifies to sit as President???

All the experts- including those advising the US military say they should not be considered WAR or COMBATANTS or SOLDIERS------they are International Criminals and should be treated as such...In order to try criminals you need charges- and evidence....

Altho Bush/Cheney couldn't go that way when the advisors came out with that advice- because much of the international community has declared them and members of the Administration the same for violating International Law-- the reason the State Dept has advised many of the Administration not to travel abroad...

Please provide a quote from these experts that think this group of terrorist that bombed US landmarks and military ships and have killed thousand of innocent US citizens should not be considered combatants. I believe once they boarded those planes on 9/11 THEY waged war on the US and THEY should be considered war combatants with NO Constitutional rights from the country THEY attacked.

And since I found nothing that says the State Dept has advised many of the Administration not to travel abroad could you please provide a quote from the State Dept. backing this comment. As Hillary is planning a trip abroad and I would hate to see anything happen to her :wink:

I already did-about 5 times :roll:

Rand Study: 'War on Terror' Not Working

Wednesday, July 30, 2008 11:59 AM

WASHINGTON — The United States should shift strategy against Al-Qaeda from the current heavy reliance on military force to more effective use of police and intelligence work, a study released Tuesday concluded.

The study by the RAND Corporation, a think tank that often does work for the US military, also urged the United States to drop the "war on terror" label.

"Terrorists should be perceived and described as criminals, not holy warriors, and our analysis suggests that there is no battlefield solution to terrorism," said Seth Jones, lead author of the study.

The US military has pressed in recent weeks for more troops to combat an intensifying Islamic insurgency in Afghanistan, but the RAND study recommends only "a light military footprint or none at all."

The study examined how terrorist groups since 1968 have ended, and found that only seven percent were defeated militarily.

Most were neutralized either through political settlements (43 percent), or through the use of police and intelligence forces (40 percent) to disrupt and capture or kill leaders.

"Military force has rarely been the primary reason for the end of terrorist groups, and few groups within this time frame achieved victory," the report said.

"This has significant implications for dealing with Al-Qaeda and suggests fundamentally rethinking post-September 11 counterterrorism strategy," it said.

It argued that a US strategy centered primarily on the use of military force has not worked, pointing to al-Qaeda's resurgence along the Pakistan-Afghanistan border nearly seven years after the September 11 attacks.

Policing and intelligence "should be the backbone of US efforts," it said. Police and intelligence agencies were better suited for penetrating terrorist groups and tracking down terrorist leaders, it said.

"Second, military force, though not necessarily US soldiers, may be a necessary instrument when al-Qaeda is involved in an insurgency," it said.

"Local military forces frequently have more legitimacy to operate than the United States has, and they have a better understanding of the operating environment, even if they need to develop the capacity to deal with insurgent groups over the long run," it said.

While the US military can play a critical role in building up the capacity of local forces, it should "generally resist being drawn into combat operations in Muslim societies, since its presence is likely to increase terrorist recruitment," the study said.

— AFP
http://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/war_on_terror/2008/07/30/117517.html
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
hypocritexposer said:
Did you bother to read the link? Obama might start proceedings again later.

What a waste of resources, he was going to trial Monday. Now they're going to start all over?

This isn't about whats best for the country or our military, it's about Obama paying back the radicals that elected him.
 

Mike

Well-known member
What's next? Will a U.S. soldier be required to read a prisoner his "Miranda" rights at the time of capture? :roll:
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
Gibbs was stumped today, when asked why charges were dropped?

His answer.....

Obama thought it was taking too long...

Then asked "This terrorist was going to be arraigned Monday, how is that speeding up the process?"

"Uh, Uh, Uh, Obama wanted to make sure the families were well represented", or something to that effect.
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
Wonder what the families of the soldiers that lost their lives thought about this. Some said this might happen when the Judge decided to defy Obama and move forward with the trial. I hope Obama has to face the military families and explain why this happened Rolling Eyes

Didn't Obama promise he would meet the families first? I think he stood them up! :mad:
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Feb 6, 8:15 PM EST


Obama meets families of USS Cole, Sept. 11 victims

By DARLENE SUPERVILLE
Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Barack Obama held an emotional meeting Friday with relatives of victims of the bombing of the USS Cole and the Sept. 11 attacks who are still waiting for justice to be served years after the deadly acts of terrorism.

Obama promised the roughly 40 family members who attended that the meeting would be the first of many.

Some of the victims' relatives said they welcomed Obama's gesture. Still, they aren't entirely convinced that his decision to close the Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, facility, where terrorism suspects are being detained, and halt legal action on their cases is the right thing to do.

Obama has expressed concerns about the fact that detainees have been held for years without trial. He has signed an executive order to close the facility within a year while the administration reviews other options for seeing that the detainees get their day in court.

Retired Navy Cmdr. Kirk S. Lippold, commanding officer of the Cole at the time of the Oct. 12, 2000, bombing, said he was disappointed when he first learned of the decision and remained skeptical. He also faulted Obama for not consulting the families ahead of time.

"In principle, his reason for closing it may be good," Lippold, a defense adviser to Military Families United, told reporters after the hourlong meeting.

Lippold said Obama's stance is "well-intentioned, but the problem I have remains that we still don't have any procedures" for what will become of the terror suspects after the detention center is closed.

Lippold was commander of the USS Cole when al-Qaida suicide bombers struck as it sat in a port in Yemen, killing 17 U.S. sailors.

The White House said Obama made clear at the meeting, held next door at the Eisenhower Executive Office Building, that his most important responsibility is keeping the American people safe.

He also explained why he thinks closing the Guantanamo facility will make the country safer and "help ensure that those who are guilty receive swift and certain justice within a legal framework that is durable, and that helps America fight terrorism more effectively around the world."

The meeting took place a day after a senior Pentagon judge dropped charges against Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, an al-Qaida suspect held at Guantanamo and accused of masterminding the USS Cole bombing. New charges against al-Nashiri could be brought later, and he will remain in custody for the time being.

A legal move late Thursday by Susan J. Crawford, the top legal authority for military trials at Guantanamo, marked the last active war crimes case there.

The Obama administration is reviewing the system to make sure the 245 suspects remaining there are given international and U.S. legal rights. That review largely will determine whether the terror suspects should be tried in U.S. courts or released to other countries.

The White House said the meeting was the first the USS Cole victims have had with a president.

Lippold said the meeting was very emotional, and that the discussion largely focused on how to deal with the detainees, the impact of the decision on trials and what it would mean to the U.S. image abroad.

He said he expected the families would be asked for input after the 120-day review period.

"I'm looking forward to working with them as we have never had an opportunity as families to help shape policy when it comes to keeping our nation safe," Lippold said.

John Clodfelter, an Air Force veteran who lost his son, Kenneth, on the USS Cole, said he went into the meeting with a negative attitude.

"I didn't vote for the man," he said, still emotional hours after the meeting. "But ... the way he conducts himself, the way he talks, you can't help but believe him."

Clodfelter also expressed frustration with the lack of a trial for al-Nashiri eight years after the attack.

"We should have already had this man tried and executed if that's what the case is,"
he said. "I can't imagine an American that's in one of our prisons for eight years without anything being done for him."

Sally Regenhard, who lost her son, Christian, during the Sept. 11, 2001, attack on New York's World Trade Center, said the families had a good experience with Obama.

"He said that he's going to make sure that justice is done regarding the terrorists," she said in a telephone interview. "And we'll have an open line of communication with the White House regarding the family members. That's revolutionary."

"He assured us that he wants the same things that we want," Regenhard added.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
"He said that he's going to make sure that justice is done regarding the terrorists"

Maybe we ought to review some other things that Obama has said;
No lobbyists
Never heard Wright say anything controversial
Ayers was rehabilitated
Never knew Blago was fishing for a deal
Would of supported Infant Born Alive Act with federal wording

I could list many other things Obama has said. With that in mind, how can she, or anybody else for that matter, believe a word he says?
 
Top