Evidence? What evidence?
Now, what I did last week was writing a letter to your Department of Defense, while they were so kind to publish an accounting of a tribunal hearing to establish the 'enemy combatant' status of some guy called Sheikh Mohamed, which was abducted and mistreated for the last three and a half years, which might lead to a distorted state of mind as we all can imagine, except seemingly most of the inhabitants of the US of fucking A it seems to me from overhere.
Here is the letter, of which I presume your red tape is deciding in what catagory of hostility it should be placed:
About transcript_isn10024.pdf
The hearing was meant to establish if person x should be held for an enemy combatant according to the subversive US laws that override regular justice while administered abroad. The so called 'detainee' acknowledges this, but states that according to both the US and to the fraction he says to belong to (though differently than accused of) the language of war is spoken on both sides, thus he should be held as an enemy combatant. While denying almost any accusation made, allegedly substantiated by witnesses that do not seem to be of importance to this tribunal, one of the core pieces of material lays down confessions (in perfect english) that seem to be far reaching but may be inconsistent to what the detainee/defendant stated earlier. While parts of the accounted text is [redacted] it contains at the end a long monologue of the detainee (on one occasion [redacted] as well) that sheds enough light on the motives of the detainee to make him susceptible to regular justice instead of hidden tribunal handling (which is in fact an illegal way of handling matters).
It is difficult to ascertain truthfully accounts in this report while it might be that
a) the defendant/detainee not quite fully comprehends the english tongue (being responsible we should be all, but in legal terms it is meant to be a core role, while at the same time he states that all warring parties are responsible for choosing the illegimate though condoned 'war language' ie killing individuals), which makes him part of the list of confessions maybe, but not to be proved major accomplisher;
b) the defendant/detainee made up these statements fed by three and a half years of (not very substantiated; psychological effects cannot be ruled out here) interrogations, written down by an external party while it is in straightforward english, while the rest of his statements are clearly not;
c) the defendant/detainee was not part in this confession list at all while the report might be fabricated consisting of partly truthfully recorded material, and partly inserted material;
d) the report only contains 'unclassified' information while classified information is defined as not meant to be made public while concerning intelligence issues and operations, which in itself cannot be verified, not to speak about the extrajudicial process this account is part of.
Although it is very nice to publish this account (some civility left) the question is who will read it, and what can be concluded from it. My point is that this is not a genuine confession, as it might have been fabricated, although some Congress members attended the hearing via a video link I read somewhere...
You know, when I am angry I will not hesitate to do stupid things as well, and when I am brainwashed I will do what is to be expected (why wasn't this hearing organized three years ago?). The hearing might be establishing the mans status as an enemy combatant, while he is hating the US Government so much that he is even proud of it, and he has plenty of reasons. When you read the account you will see that almost every accusation made is refuted by the man, which makes your anti terror organization look like a bunch of amateurs, while your 'intelligence' is still seen as cause of action on your part. You screw up every internationally agreed on legislature to operate on corrupt information fed to you by your 'intelligence'.
Now, if I were attacked by some body out of wrong reasons, or no intelligable reason at all, does that make me an enemy combatant, or should that body of aggression earn that status? Your country has a long history in screwing up things abroad for selfish reasons while you praise the lord and god blesses america, my ass!
Here is the letter, of which I presume your red tape is deciding in what catagory of hostility it should be placed:
About transcript_isn10024.pdf
The hearing was meant to establish if person x should be held for an enemy combatant according to the subversive US laws that override regular justice while administered abroad. The so called 'detainee' acknowledges this, but states that according to both the US and to the fraction he says to belong to (though differently than accused of) the language of war is spoken on both sides, thus he should be held as an enemy combatant. While denying almost any accusation made, allegedly substantiated by witnesses that do not seem to be of importance to this tribunal, one of the core pieces of material lays down confessions (in perfect english) that seem to be far reaching but may be inconsistent to what the detainee/defendant stated earlier. While parts of the accounted text is [redacted] it contains at the end a long monologue of the detainee (on one occasion [redacted] as well) that sheds enough light on the motives of the detainee to make him susceptible to regular justice instead of hidden tribunal handling (which is in fact an illegal way of handling matters).
It is difficult to ascertain truthfully accounts in this report while it might be that
a) the defendant/detainee not quite fully comprehends the english tongue (being responsible we should be all, but in legal terms it is meant to be a core role, while at the same time he states that all warring parties are responsible for choosing the illegimate though condoned 'war language' ie killing individuals), which makes him part of the list of confessions maybe, but not to be proved major accomplisher;
b) the defendant/detainee made up these statements fed by three and a half years of (not very substantiated; psychological effects cannot be ruled out here) interrogations, written down by an external party while it is in straightforward english, while the rest of his statements are clearly not;
c) the defendant/detainee was not part in this confession list at all while the report might be fabricated consisting of partly truthfully recorded material, and partly inserted material;
d) the report only contains 'unclassified' information while classified information is defined as not meant to be made public while concerning intelligence issues and operations, which in itself cannot be verified, not to speak about the extrajudicial process this account is part of.
Although it is very nice to publish this account (some civility left) the question is who will read it, and what can be concluded from it. My point is that this is not a genuine confession, as it might have been fabricated, although some Congress members attended the hearing via a video link I read somewhere...
You know, when I am angry I will not hesitate to do stupid things as well, and when I am brainwashed I will do what is to be expected (why wasn't this hearing organized three years ago?). The hearing might be establishing the mans status as an enemy combatant, while he is hating the US Government so much that he is even proud of it, and he has plenty of reasons. When you read the account you will see that almost every accusation made is refuted by the man, which makes your anti terror organization look like a bunch of amateurs, while your 'intelligence' is still seen as cause of action on your part. You screw up every internationally agreed on legislature to operate on corrupt information fed to you by your 'intelligence'.
Now, if I were attacked by some body out of wrong reasons, or no intelligable reason at all, does that make me an enemy combatant, or should that body of aggression earn that status? Your country has a long history in screwing up things abroad for selfish reasons while you praise the lord and god blesses america, my ass!
posted by mxl at 8:37 AM
1 Comments:
Never received any answer though...
Post a Comment
<< Home