Gitmo authorities would have you believe that five 9/11 detainees charged with 9/11

[seemslikeadream]

The authorities at Gitmo would have you believe that the five 9/11 detainees charged with 9/11 wrote this on March 1, got it translated into English and typed up and hand-classified Top Secret/SCI, then was given to the judge on March 5. And the judge reviewed it, reviewed its classification and deemed it unclassified, and then released it all by March 10.



http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x5230201

"Troubling"-Detainees Newly Released Confession-"Typed-In English-NO Signatures"
Edited on Wed Mar-11-09 10:18 AM by kpete
The Latest Prop from Gitmo
By: emptywheel Wednesday March 11, 2009 7:54 am
http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2009/03/11/the-latest... /

........... What proof is there that all five detainees have signed this document, Adam al-Hawsawi's attorney asked, when all we've got is a typed English document.


"There is no evidence that Mr. al Hawsawi knew about, read or signed this document ," Maj. Jon Jackson said in an email. "It is a typed message in English with no signature. I object to this highly irregular document release." Maj. Jackson said he was unaware of the statement until the military judge ordered copies sent to attorneys Monday.


And how is it that this document has been published so quickly, other defense attorneys ask, when their own filings still haven't been released?


Defense attorneys and civil liberties groups said that the speed with which Judge Stephen R. Henley, an Army colonel, released the statement after reviewing it March 5 was troubling. They pointed to an e-mail from the clerk of court for the military commissions to counsel on the issue, which said, "I have been asked by our . . . folks to release the documents ASAP."


The authorities at Gitmo would have you believe that the five 9/11 detainees charged with 9/11 wrote this on March 1, got it translated into English and typed up and hand-classified Top Secret/SCI, then was given to the judge on March 5. And the judge reviewed it, reviewed its classification and deemed it unclassified, and then released it all by March 10.

[Bolo Boffin]

1. So the Gitmo officials are pulling a Mark Furhman?

Framing a guilty man?

[seemslikeadream]

4. and YOU are convicting without benefit of a trial?

[Bolo Boffin]

5. When the guilt is as palpable as O.J., then yes, I am

Save your outrage for someone that takes it seriously, slad.

[seemslikeadream]

6. I rest my case

too bad you do not believe in the Bill of Rights? Or maybe forgot?


The first 10 amendments to the United States Constitution. Called the "Bill of Rights", these amendments were ratified on December 15, 1791.


Freedom of Speech, Press, Religion and Petition

Right to keep and bear arms

Conditions for quarters of soldiers

Right of search and seizure regulated

Provisons concerning prosecution

Right to a speedy trial, witnesses, etc.


In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.


Right to a trial by jury

In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

Excessive bail, cruel punishment

Rule of construction of Constitution

Rights of the States under Constitution

[Bolo Boffin]

7. Nothing I have said precludes those rights in any way.

I think they're as guilty as sin. That doesn't prevent them from getting a trial by jury or a speedy trial.

Like I said, save your outrage for someone who takes it seriously or might actually be convinced it's genuine.

[seemslikeadream]

8. Framing a guilty man?

I don't see the word "think" there

[Bolo Boffin]

9. Am I doing the framing?

If that even is what's happening here. The possibility that the express wishes of these five being advanced by GTMO officials for their own devices, that hasn't been ruled out.

But Bolo Boffin posting his opinion on a public message board is doing nothing to violate the human rights of these prisoners.

[whatchamacallit]

10. Bolo's right, leaving aside the long hostile incarcerations, torture, and mysterious deaths

there's absolutely no reason to question the motives of the GITMO military authority.

[Bolo Boffin]

11. Please stop describing my position so incredibly inaccurately.

If you want to describe my position, quote my words. If you don't understand my position, ask me and I'll use smaller words.

But cease misrepresenting my position immediately.

[whatchamacallit]

12. Just like ED-209 "Cease immediately, you have 20 seconds to comply!"

:rofl:

[Bolo Boffin]

13. Deal with my words, if you dare

Making up positions and ascribing them to me shows an incredible lack of incivility, among other things.

[whatchamacallit]

14. Words like these?

"When the guilt is as palpable as O.J., then yes, I am"

What an incredibly revealing statement! At least with the OJ trial we all followed the evidence in great detail on TV before coming to conclusions. For these terror suspects, you apparently need nothing more than the statement of an authority figure and your bias. Very telling about how you process concepts like truth and justice...

[Bolo Boffin]

15. It's also incredibly revealing that having misrepresented my position on a topic

you return not to that topic but to a comment you think detracting of me.

What's the matter? Care not to deal with your assertion that I find "there's absolutely no reason to question the motives of the GITMO military authority"? Where the fuck did you get that from? Defend your assertion against me, especially since I said "Framing a guilty man." What possible reason could you have for thinking I approve of framing anybody? Calling it a Mark Fuhrman at all implies no validation of the action.

So without even the suggestion of an apology for your fucking smearing of me, you grab another statement and keep doing the same thing. How do you know that all I've relied on to call them guilty is the statement of an authority figure and my bias? Because it entertains your own fucking bias against me to say such a thing. You are incredibly rude, you are NOT discussing in good faith, and until you do apologize to me, your posts against me will be reported for the trolling and attacks against me that they are.

[rhymeandreason]

2. We Are Being spoon-fed stupid again...

See this discussion:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=5224675&mesg_id=5224675

Larissa Alexandrovna.

[rollingrock]

3. Forged docements?

It wouldn't be the first time, would it?

Uranium document forgeries

The Niger uranium forgeries refers to forged documents initially revealed by Italian intelligence. These documents purport to depict an attempt by the regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq to purchase "yellowcake" uranium ore from Niger during the Iraq disarmament crisis.

On the basis of these documents and other indicators, the governments of the United States and the United Kingdom asserted that Iraq had attempted to procure nuclear material for the purpose of creating what they called weapons of mass destruction, referred to as WMD, in defiance of the United Nations Iraq sanctions.

U.S. President George W. Bush cited the documents in a sixteen-word sentence in the January 2003 State of the Union Address; when the International Atomic Energy Agency later determined the documents were forged and the U.S. government declassified a 2002 Central Intelligence Agency report casting doubt on the documents' veracity, the administration was criticized by many for its decision to include the sentence. See "Sixteen Words" controversy below...

(continued)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellowcake_forgery