Not since World War Two has so much basic moral wrong been justified in the name of national security. George Bush has brought this country to a moral low rarely reached in its history.

To set the stage, the CIA (Rice later admited) kidnapped the wrong man by mistake and abused and imprisoned him for months. Today the judge tossed out the charges based on:



Which sounds more like a NKVD judge speaking than an American jurist. It does not matter if we kidnapped an innocent man and beat him bloody or left him in prison for months. We have nothing to appologize or pay reparations for and "state security" trumps basic moral right and wrong.

Its not hard of course to understand why the US government would want the world not to hear his story in a court of law under any circumstances. Twenty years from now Americans, who are basically decent people despite the thugs that run much of our policy these days, will be horrified by what resulted. If what results from judicial abandoment of the rule of law allows them that privlidge that is. A quarter of a century ago Hollywood did a movie about the KBG taking over the US and installing an authoritarian regime with no respect for civil rights. They got it half right.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4996140.stm

__________________
Paranoia strikes deep
Into your life it will creep
It starts when you're always afraid
You step out of line, the man come and take you away

Yes indeed.

I suspect that this is exactly why America's image is suffering so greatly in the world at large, right at the moment.

At least during Vietnam, we tried to keep that kind of stuff secret. We didn't really hear about the kids being dropped out of the helicopters, until after the war.

Now, it's like we're flaunting that kind of stuff, and using all manner of inexcusable excuses to justify it.

This is one of the reasons I hate GWB and his minions so much. He's completely destroyed what little credibility we had left, vis-a-vis the issue you're raising.

We were over in Switzerland recently, and those folks are pretty hip to international politics. We were sitting along the Limmat in Zurich, having a friendly discussion with some of the locals. And many of the questions were right along these lines.

Do you agree with what your government is doing? Do you support your President in these activities? That kind of thing.... they were genuinely curious to hear what Joe American thinks about all this stuff.

Unfortunately, I had to tell them that my President doesn't speak for me, and that I hardly agree with even a single thing he's doing.

And for whatever reason, they seemed surprised by that.

And that, is not a good thing. Not good at all.

He alleges and you instantly believe....


The judge says...

You say...


You have no idea of his innocence or guilt. Nor do you have any evidence supporting your claims of him being beat bloody...but you don't care do you.

SO while your decrying the Judge and claiming he's acting like a NKVD judge..here you are determing guilt of anyone attached to this case and the valdidity of the accuser with 0 evidence.
So who again is the NKVD guy?..I got lost..




///
The Amerika...miniseries.

Yeah I saw it when it came out... wasn't that great.... a typical Kris Kristofferson film. But you seem to have totally missed the message of it. Not surprising.


Amerika was about the USSR invading and the Americans being so weak do to a world government(assumedly under the UN but it was never made clear) and so unable to resist that they simply caved in then about a decade or so latter the main character (an almost christ like figure-not by accident)starts a movement to restore the USA.. It was a mini-series dealing not only with the threat of communism at the time but also the threat of allowing the "world" to run the affairs of the US.
IOW not a film you want to point to. It more or less a vilification of the very philosiphies and ideas the far left and you are espousing today.

werent paying attention. Rice admited last year to the German Chancelor it happened. Its not me speculating on anything....the US government stated it happened.

__________________
Paranoia strikes deep
Into your life it will creep
It starts when you're always afraid
You step out of line, the man come and take you away

I know none of this will matter but:

Obviously she would not have done so had 1) we not had him and 2) he was guilty.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khalid_El-Masri

Who says State does not have a sense of humor.

So they admit his detention (even if you accept their version and not the chancellor's) and:

In other words they (at their minimalist account) held him for months when they had no reason to so...lol

http://washingtontimes.com/world/200...0642-7766r.htm

From a major German magazine Der Spiegel

http://tinyurl.com/n5vte

According to an article on MSNBC, from 23 April 2005, Khaled El-Masri was kept in Afghanistan even after it was learned that he was an innocent man.

February: CIA officers in Kabul began to suspect he was the wrong man, and they raised the red flag. They send his passport back to the agency's headquarters in Langley, Va.
March: The CIA finish checking his passport and find it was not a fake.
mid-April: Officials call a special meeting at the CIA to brief director George Tenet. An officer quotes Tenet as saying, "You've got an innocent guy in the Salt Pit?" Tenet said El-Masri should be released.
May: National Security Council Director Condoleezza Rice learns of the mistake and orders El-Masri's immediate release.
2 weeks after the above: El-Masri is still not released. Rice re-orders his release
29 May: El-Masri is freed (date from New York Times article.


This is what behavior we are supporting these days (of a man we now say was innocent):

you never know it might have been the Martins or the grenadier guard in Afghanistan.....


http://tinyurl.com/odwv2

__________________
Paranoia strikes deep
Into your life it will creep
It starts when you're always afraid
You step out of line, the man come and take you away

I knew all that. He was released becasue he wasn't the right person. Thats not innocence but ok..fine he's been deemed innocent. He was detained mistakenly..


But then you proceed to pull this crap-





Still with no evidence but that mans word you have decided he is telling the truth that we are all responsible for the behavior and that you have already found guilty all those involved at all levels. Based on nothing but the words of a man looking for monetary compenstation for unproven allegation.

Once again proving you don't give a (*)(*)(*)(*) if its true or not..its useful for your rhetoric and thats all that matters to you.

Being immoral I think would include (*)(*)(*)(*)ing someone you have no idea who, of course, for actions you don't even know occured simply because you want to vilify the US in its efforts to fight terrorists...or as you probably think of them... patriotic freedom fighter fighting for a just cause.


BTW good job focusing on the least relevant part of what I said.
I guess that was easier then the rest...

You need to read court cases in which the US has formally admited much worse behavior than this in Iraq and world wide. I believe it because 1) its happened repeatedly and been well documented and 2) he told the truth according to the US government on the key point, its logical that he told the rest of the story (which is not much worse than a false kiddnapping) correctly given what is known of US methods abroad.

Whats remarkable is that you blindly continue to defend the undefendable regardless of evidence, while declaring that you're concerned with human rights. Thats......well I think totall hypocrite comes to mind but then I doubt you really believe in human rights or you would not defend such behavior.



lol even for you Duh2 that is a classic

__________________
Paranoia strikes deep
Into your life it will creep
It starts when you're always afraid
You step out of line, the man come and take you away

I don't get your point. I know nothing of this case but if the guy was realeased because he was the wrong guy then that would make him innocent of what they thought the real guy did. Wouldn't it?

Are you saying that just because he didn't commit these crimes he could be guilty of something else? Amazing logic. Geez just what is this country coming to if the people think like this? I might as well turn myself in for something. I'm sure somewhere along the line I did something I should feel guilty about.

in as much as that means anything is that prisoners of US state security are guilty till proven innocent. Thus the fact that they concluded they had the wrong man is immaterial. No court formally proved him innocent, of charges which were of course never filed in the first place, thus he is by definition guilty.

Not that guilt or innocent has anything to do with whether the US government can kidnap, beat or torture people anyhow to the Bush administration or its supporters. Many of the people it seized and bloodied were done simply because they were in the wrong place at the wrong time, which the US government eventually got around to admitting.

You dont need to be guilty of anything to be seized, beat, or tortured in Amerika. That is sort of the point.

__________________
Paranoia strikes deep
Into your life it will creep
It starts when you're always afraid
You step out of line, the man come and take you away

My point is that Noesti with 0 evidence has determined that this man's claims of torture are authentic because Noesti wants such things to be real in order to fuel his rhetoric.

He got stuck on the innocent part because it's the only part of his claims that he can prove to any real degree.

Look at his last two threads by him....Remember hes still with no evidence other then his opinion. He has become the judge and jury and has deemed fit to defame an entire nation its people and its leaders on the basis of nothing more the this man's accusations.

..and now you may note--

Now its many and they are where all bloodied and the US admitted as much...
IOW he's busilly already creating a routine around his own opinion and nothing more.

The truthfulness of the man's accusations are irrelevant to him. The usefulness of the accusations to his cause are all that matters. He wil (*)(*)(*)(*) anyone based on nothing.

We were talking immorality....I think he's attempting to define it by personal example.


You call me a hypocrite for not agreeing with your judgment based on nothing of others..sure thing there pal. Forget the NKVD your more fit for the People's Court..and I'm not talking about Wapner's.


////////////////////


..and Rota I meant that simply being released does not in itself determine either guilt or innocence of the individual released. That was all I meant nothing more.
Definitely not the perverted manure Noesti just spewed out .