The Atheist Communist Caliphate Made Flesh, Spread the Clusterfuck Around Thread

[RV]

Far be it from me to question the assertions of the Bush DOJ, but if Zubaida's statement that Padilla intended to detonate a dirty bomb was confirmed by "multiple independent and corroborating sources" as Ashcroft claimed, why was the dirty bomb plot never mentioned in the government's charges against Padilla? And the fact that Zubaida wasn't used as a witness in the trial against Padilla doesn't exactly speak to his reliability.

Ah.  Padilla's just a regular Joe.  I get it now.

Maybe an answer of the question would be a better response.

Sure, Chuck.  My response is that stopping something from happening and being able to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law are two different things.

My next questions would be: Our justice system that has worked pretty well for a few hundred years all of a sudden shouldn't apply to specific situations or people? And shouldn't the burden of proof be on the plaintiff (Cheney and Comey in this case) to prove these "specific attacks" rather than taking their word for it?

[morpheus]

Far be it from me to question the assertions of the Bush DOJ, but if Zubaida's statement that Padilla intended to detonate a dirty bomb was confirmed by "multiple independent and corroborating sources" as Ashcroft claimed, why was the dirty bomb plot never mentioned in the government's charges against Padilla? And the fact that Zubaida wasn't used as a witness in the trial against Padilla doesn't exactly speak to his reliability.

Ah.  Padilla's just a regular Joe.  I get it now.

Maybe an answer of the question would be a better response.

Sure, Chuck.  My response is that stopping something from happening and being able to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law are two different things.

My next questions would be: Our justice system that has worked pretty well for a few hundred years all of a sudden shouldn't apply to specific situations or people? And shouldn't the burden of proof be on the plaintiff (Cheney and Comey in this case) to prove these "specific attacks" rather than taking their word for it?

The burden of proof in a court is on the plaintiff.  I agree with that.  However, I thought my last statement, that I wasn't talking about trials, was pretty clear.

Look, until we can see the classified stuff that Cheney alluded to, we can go around and around on this forever.  I'd really rather not.

[ChuckD]

Far be it from me to question the assertions of the Bush DOJ, but if Zubaida's statement that Padilla intended to detonate a dirty bomb was confirmed by "multiple independent and corroborating sources" as Ashcroft claimed, why was the dirty bomb plot never mentioned in the government's charges against Padilla? And the fact that Zubaida wasn't used as a witness in the trial against Padilla doesn't exactly speak to his reliability.

Ah.  Padilla's just a regular Joe.  I get it now.

Maybe an answer of the question would be a better response.

Sure, Chuck.  My response is that stopping something from happening and being able to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law are two different things.

My next questions would be: Our justice system that has worked pretty well for a few hundred years all of a sudden shouldn't apply to specific situations or people? And shouldn't the burden of proof be on the plaintiff (Cheney and Comey in this case) to prove these "specific attacks" rather than taking their word for it?

The burden of proof in a court is on the plaintiff.  I agree with that.  However, I thought my last statement, that I wasn't talking about trials, was pretty clear.

Look, until we can see the classified stuff that Cheney alluded to, we can go around and around on this forever.  I'd really rather not.

I'll just take Cheney's word. He's good for it.

[Chuck to Chuck]

Far be it from me to question the assertions of the Bush DOJ, but if Zubaida's statement that Padilla intended to detonate a dirty bomb was confirmed by "multiple independent and corroborating sources" as Ashcroft claimed, why was the dirty bomb plot never mentioned in the government's charges against Padilla? And the fact that Zubaida wasn't used as a witness in the trial against Padilla doesn't exactly speak to his reliability.

Ah.  Padilla's just a regular Joe.  I get it now.

Maybe an answer of the question would be a better response.

Sure, Chuck.  My response is that stopping something from happening and being able to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law are two different things.

But that doesn't really answer the question.  They took Padilla to court.  Unless the prosecutors were so sure that Padilla was convicted based on what other evidence they had, why wouldn't they present the Zubaida evidence / confession?  Don't you want to pile EVERYTHING on to make a guy look as guilty as possible to a jury?

The Occam's Razor answer is that either there was insufficient evidence to convict Padilla of a dirty bomb plot (which means there was little that Zubaida said that was credible), or that Zubaida's evidence would be inadmissable because, say, Zubaida was tortured.

I'm guessing that the answer is probably somewhat both.  I'd also guess that Padilla's plot to use a dirty bomb were as real as my thoughts to buy the Cubs: Yes, he thought about it and how he would do it, but he was nowhere near close to being able to pull it off.

[morpheus]

Far be it from me to question the assertions of the Bush DOJ, but if Zubaida's statement that Padilla intended to detonate a dirty bomb was confirmed by "multiple independent and corroborating sources" as Ashcroft claimed, why was the dirty bomb plot never mentioned in the government's charges against Padilla? And the fact that Zubaida wasn't used as a witness in the trial against Padilla doesn't exactly speak to his reliability.

Ah.  Padilla's just a regular Joe.  I get it now.

Maybe an answer of the question would be a better response.

Sure, Chuck.  My response is that stopping something from happening and being able to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law are two different things.

But that doesn't really answer the question.  They took Padilla to court.  Unless the prosecutors were so sure that Padilla was convicted based on what other evidence they had, why wouldn't they present the Zubaida evidence / confession?  Don't you want to pile EVERYTHING on to make a guy look as guilty as possible to a jury?

The Occam's Razor answer is that either there was insufficient evidence to convict Padilla of a dirty bomb plot (which means there was little that Zubaida said that was credible), or that Zubaida's evidence would be inadmissable because, say, Zubaida was tortured.

I'm guessing that the answer is probably somewhat both.  I'd also guess that Padilla's plot to use a dirty bomb were as real as my thoughts to buy the Cubs: Yes, he thought about it and how he would do it, but he was nowhere near close to being able to pull it off.

You are assuming that 1) that's the only plot he was involved with, 2) he would have been stopped had they not interrogated Zubaida, and 3) that the whole point of such interrogation is to make court cases.

[RV]

Far be it from me to question the assertions of the Bush DOJ, but if Zubaida's statement that Padilla intended to detonate a dirty bomb was confirmed by "multiple independent and corroborating sources" as Ashcroft claimed, why was the dirty bomb plot never mentioned in the government's charges against Padilla? And the fact that Zubaida wasn't used as a witness in the trial against Padilla doesn't exactly speak to his reliability.

Ah.  Padilla's just a regular Joe.  I get it now.

Maybe an answer of the question would be a better response.

Sure, Chuck.  My response is that stopping something from happening and being able to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law are two different things.

My next questions would be: Our justice system that has worked pretty well for a few hundred years all of a sudden shouldn't apply to specific situations or people? And shouldn't the burden of proof be on the plaintiff (Cheney and Comey in this case) to prove these "specific attacks" rather than taking their word for it?

The burden of proof in a court is on the plaintiff.  I agree with that.  However, I thought my last statement, that I wasn't talking about trials, was pretty clear.

Look, until we can see the classified stuff that Cheney alluded to, we can go around and around on this forever.  I'd really rather not.

I'll just take Cheney's word. He's good for it.

I'd also submit this report that Zubaida provided Jose Padilla's name before the 'enhanced interrogations' took place - not because of them.

There is little dispute, according to officials from both agencies, that Abu Zubaida provided some valuable intelligence before CIA interrogators began to rough him up, including information that helped identify Khalid Sheik Mohammed, the alleged mastermind of the Sept. 11 attacks, and al-Qaeda operative Jose Padilla. Footnotes in the 9/11 Commission report attribute information about a variety of al-Qaeda personnel and activities to interrogations of Abu Zubaida beginning in April 2002 and lasting through February 2004.

[Chuck to Chuck]

You are assuming that 1) that's the only plot he was involved with, 2) he would have been stopped had they not interrogated Zubaida, and 3) that the whole point of such interrogation is to make court cases.

1) No, I'm not, as they convicted him on other charges.
2) As they convicted using evidence from other sources, it's unreasonable to believe that Zubaida was the illuminating source.
3) The "point" is irrelevant as there was a trial.  Given that there was a trial, no matter what the initial "point" was, in a trial you use all available methods and evidence to get a conviction.  If Zubaida provided such, the only reasons not use said methods or evidence is that they were either tainted or non-existent.

[Internet Apex]

Steve Chapman sums it up nicely again.

Torture ought to be unacceptable even if it's effective--just as threatening to kill a criminal's children would be unthinkable even if necessary to prevent a terrible crime. But if it doesn't work, it's not only unacceptable but pointless.

His comments refer to this article...

In the end, though, not a single significant plot was foiled as a result of Abu Zubaida's tortured confessions, according to former senior government officials who closely followed the interrogations. Nearly all of the leads attained through the harsh measures quickly evaporated, while most of the useful information from Abu Zubaida -- chiefly names of al-Qaeda members and associates -- was obtained before waterboarding was introduced, they said.

Chapman relies on the WaPo article to make his points... and the WaPo article is full of misinformation and misleading assertions.  One example: Zubaida's interrogations led to the capture of Jose Padilla, which the WaPo dismisses as some sort of phantom or false alarm.  I guess capturing a guy who had trained in al-Qaeda camps, who was in fact plotting to carry out terrorist acts, and who was tight with Khalid Shekih Mohammed and other al-Qaeda top figures was a "phantom."  Tell that to Deputy Attorney General James Comey.  http://nefafoundation.org/miscellaneous/FeaturedDocs/azizDOJ_PadillaLink.pdf

On May the 8th of 2002, a soldier of our enemy, a trained, funded and equipped terrorist, stepped off that plane at Chicago's O'Hare; a highly trained al Qaeda soldier who had accepted an assignment to kill hundreds of innocent men, women and children by destroying apartment buildings; an al Qaeda soldier who still hoped and planned to do even more by detonating a radiological device, a dirty bomb, in this country; an al Qaeda soldier who was trusted enough to spend hour after hour with the leaders of al Qaeda: Mohammed Atef, Abu Zubaydah, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed; an al Qaeda soldier who had vital information about our enemy and its plans; and lastly an al Qaeda soldier who, as an American citizen, was free to move in, within and out of this country.

Far be it from me to question the assertions of the Bush DOJ, but if Zubaida's statement that Padilla intended to detonate a dirty bomb was confirmed by "multiple independent and corroborating sources" as Ashcroft claimed, why was the dirty bomb plot never mentioned in the government's charges against Padilla? And the fact that Zubaida wasn't used as a witness in the trial against Padilla doesn't exactly speak to his reliability.

Ah.  Padilla's just a regular Joe.  I get it now.

Friend of mine who grew up in the Hermosa neighborhood was familair with Padilla growing up.  Told me he once "stabbed a Mexican to death in the alley." 

That's all I got.  Carry on.

Intrepid Reader: powen1

So, who the fuck hasn't?

[powen01]

Steve Chapman sums it up nicely again.

Torture ought to be unacceptable even if it's effective--just as threatening to kill a criminal's children would be unthinkable even if necessary to prevent a terrible crime. But if it doesn't work, it's not only unacceptable but pointless.

His comments refer to this article...

In the end, though, not a single significant plot was foiled as a result of Abu Zubaida's tortured confessions, according to former senior government officials who closely followed the interrogations. Nearly all of the leads attained through the harsh measures quickly evaporated, while most of the useful information from Abu Zubaida -- chiefly names of al-Qaeda members and associates -- was obtained before waterboarding was introduced, they said.

Chapman relies on the WaPo article to make his points... and the WaPo article is full of misinformation and misleading assertions.  One example: Zubaida's interrogations led to the capture of Jose Padilla, which the WaPo dismisses as some sort of phantom or false alarm.  I guess capturing a guy who had trained in al-Qaeda camps, who was in fact plotting to carry out terrorist acts, and who was tight with Khalid Shekih Mohammed and other al-Qaeda top figures was a "phantom."  Tell that to Deputy Attorney General James Comey.  http://nefafoundation.org/miscellaneous/FeaturedDocs/azizDOJ_PadillaLink.pdf

On May the 8th of 2002, a soldier of our enemy, a trained, funded and equipped terrorist, stepped off that plane at Chicago's O'Hare; a highly trained al Qaeda soldier who had accepted an assignment to kill hundreds of innocent men, women and children by destroying apartment buildings; an al Qaeda soldier who still hoped and planned to do even more by detonating a radiological device, a dirty bomb, in this country; an al Qaeda soldier who was trusted enough to spend hour after hour with the leaders of al Qaeda: Mohammed Atef, Abu Zubaydah, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed; an al Qaeda soldier who had vital information about our enemy and its plans; and lastly an al Qaeda soldier who, as an American citizen, was free to move in, within and out of this country.

Far be it from me to question the assertions of the Bush DOJ, but if Zubaida's statement that Padilla intended to detonate a dirty bomb was confirmed by "multiple independent and corroborating sources" as Ashcroft claimed, why was the dirty bomb plot never mentioned in the government's charges against Padilla? And the fact that Zubaida wasn't used as a witness in the trial against Padilla doesn't exactly speak to his reliability.

Ah.  Padilla's just a regular Joe.  I get it now.

Friend of mine who grew up in the Hermosa neighborhood was familair with Padilla growing up.  Told me he once "stabbed a Mexican to death in the alley." 

That's all I got.  Carry on.

Intrepid Reader: powen1

So, who the fuck hasn't?

I know exactly who to call when I need a spokesperson. 

As they say in Tijuana, "Es Oro Geraldo!  Oro!".

[morpheus]

This would be funny if it weren't so sad.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/michaelcalderone/0409/Keller_Times_will_be_left_standing_after_the_deluge_.html

Commenting on the keep-the-Times alive movement, Keller said: "Saving the New York Times now ranks with saving Darfur as a high-minded cause."

Yes, saving a newpaper/media company is right up there with saving innocent lives from genocide.  Amazing.

[Quality Start Machine]

This would be funny if it weren't so sad.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/michaelcalderone/0409/Keller_Times_will_be_left_standing_after_the_deluge_.html

Commenting on the keep-the-Times alive movement, Keller said: "Saving the New York Times now ranks with saving Darfur as a high-minded cause."

Yes, saving a newpaper/media company is right up there with saving innocent lives from genocide.  Amazing.

Ever since Mort Zuckerman bought the Daily News, there hasn't been a newspaper in NY I'd wrap fish in. The Times is merely the best of a shitty lot.

[*In a Nutsack]

This would be funny if it weren't so sad.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/michaelcalderone/0409/Keller_Times_will_be_left_standing_after_the_deluge_.html

Commenting on the keep-the-Times alive movement, Keller said: "Saving the New York Times now ranks with saving Darfur as a high-minded cause."

Yes, saving a newpaper/media company is right up there with saving innocent lives from genocide.  Amazing.

Ever since Mort Zuckerman bought the Daily News, there hasn't been a newspaper in NY I'd wrap fish in. The Times is merely the best of a shitty lot.

Isn't news print media pretty much irrelevant now, anyway?

[morpheus]

This would be funny if it weren't so sad.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/michaelcalderone/0409/Keller_Times_will_be_left_standing_after_the_deluge_.html

Commenting on the keep-the-Times alive movement, Keller said: "Saving the New York Times now ranks with saving Darfur as a high-minded cause."

Yes, saving a newpaper/media company is right up there with saving innocent lives from genocide.  Amazing.

Ever since Mort Zuckerman bought the Daily News, there hasn't been a newspaper in NY I'd wrap fish in. The Times is merely the best of a shitty lot.

Isn't news print media pretty much irrelevant now, anyway?

Yes... which makes Keller's SAVE THE NEW YORK TIMES!!!! movement even more puzzling.

[Quality Start Machine]

This would be funny if it weren't so sad.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/michaelcalderone/0409/Keller_Times_will_be_left_standing_after_the_deluge_.html

Commenting on the keep-the-Times alive movement, Keller said: "Saving the New York Times now ranks with saving Darfur as a high-minded cause."

Yes, saving a newpaper/media company is right up there with saving innocent lives from genocide.  Amazing.

Ever since Mort Zuckerman bought the Daily News, there hasn't been a newspaper in NY I'd wrap fish in. The Times is merely the best of a shitty lot.

Isn't news print media pretty much irrelevant now, anyway?

Yes... which makes Keller's SAVE THE NEW YORK TIMES!!!! movement even more puzzling.

It's the SAVE KELLER'S JOB!!! movement.

[morpheus]

http://listas.20minutos.es/?do=show&id=66425&c=1233508233

Who knew there were so many reasonably attractive*** female politicians?

*** Note: this adjective can be used to describe almost all the ladies on this list.