bad day for the left, over at the dailyKos they were rooting for an acquital.... atleast they have the market being down to cheer for. They can also keep an eye out for the mini-Tet in Iraq by their allies, leading up to Petraus report next month.

Padilla has been the left's poster child for why Bush is evil.

Too funny, but I am sure they will say that Rove paid off the jury.

We are going to kill him, right?

Sentencing is set for Dec 5th.

This just goes to show that civilian courts just fine for prosecuting terror crimes, no need to take away the right to a trial for American citizens.

Bourgeois_Rage Wrote:Sentencing is set for Dec 5th.

This just goes to show that civilian courts just fine for prosecuting terror crimes, no need to take away the right to a trial for American citizens.

Um, the information we used to prosecute him was only obtained via questioning in relation to terror activities...and wasn't even being tried on the basis of what he really was involved in (the plot to detonate a radioactive "dirty bomb" in an American city and/or explode public buildings using natural gas). If sitting down with a cop in a room (that they know they can get out of by just saying "I want a lawyer") fails to convince people to talk about their plans to knock over a convenience store, I seriously doubt it will convince someone to out the plans of a global crime syndicate to kill hundreds or thousands of people. Failure means a sad story in the first case, a catastrophe in the second.

Malkin has a great run down of the trial and evidence on Padilla

if the Judge hadn't allowed the FBI wiretaps as evidence he probably would've got off. She has his Al-Qaeda application form, one of the things that renounces his citizenship.



Judge Posner argues pretty well in his book about why the Executive should have the power in these cases and not the criminal courts/judges. Since its the Executive branche's constititutional job and primary responsibility and not the courts. Also the fact that the Executive branch is much more well versed in the facts of the cases than any judge ever could be sitting on a bench.

here is an interesting thing to float now, is Jose Padilla, "John Doe #2" that worked with McVeigh on Ok City bombing and they never caught? the case can be made that they favor

GrayBeard Wrote:Padilla has been the left's poster child for why Bush is evil.

Too funny, but I am sure they will say that Rove paid off the jury.

Well, when the Defense RESTS without calling ANY Witnesses...its not a hard case for the Jury to convict.

WMD Owl Wrote:Well, when the Defense RESTS without calling ANY Witnesses...its not a hard case for the Jury to convict.

Bin Laden was unavailable.

GGniner Wrote:here is an interesting thing to float now, is Jose Padilla, "John Doe #2" that worked with McVeigh on Ok City bombing and they never caught? the case can be made that they favor

Hmmm, that's interesting. How probable is it that Padilla is the same guy? Or is this just a coincidence?

Bourgeois_Rage Wrote:

GGniner Wrote:here is an interesting thing to float now, is Jose Padilla, "John Doe #2" that worked with McVeigh on Ok City bombing and they never caught? the case can be made that they favor

Hmmm, that's interesting. How probable is it that Padilla is the same guy? Or is this just a coincidence?

no idea but its long been a theory, apparently they lived 10 miles apart in Miami at one time in early 90's, he and McVeigh.

if there is a middle eastern connection, we will not find out about it from the govt. until long after Reno and clinton are dead. the theory goes that they didn't want the american people to know about anything other than an anti-govt. american being behind it because if we found out it was something else we'd demand action, possible political reasons, etc.

this Journalist in Ok. City wrote a book about it, use to get alot of run in media after 9/11. http://jaynadavis.com

I heard a terror analyst, avi lipkin, on radio one day mention he beleived and had been told that Iraq had its hand in Ok. City. In the end, who knows. I think its plausible, there was definitely a John Doe #2 they didn't go after. On other hand the official story is plausible as well.

also, as for the original famous charge of the Dirty Bomb plot in Chicago not being prosecuted. Its probably like the Moussaoui trial which also couldn't find its way to a military tribunal, the evidence that convicts in a criminal trial will give our intelligence sources to our enemies. In a military tribunal its kept secret, which is main reason they want this type of stuff out of the criminal courts.

unless of course you never trust the govt. under any circumstances and don't think we have undercover intelligence working for us and tipping us off and an obvious desire to protect those sources.

GGniner Wrote:if there is a middle eastern connection, we will not find out about it from the govt. until long after Reno and clinton are dead. the theory goes that they didn't want the american people to know about anything other than an anti-govt. american being behind it because if we found out it was something else we'd demand action, possible political reasons, etc.

this Journalist in Ok. City wrote a book about it, use to get alot of run in media after 9/11. http://jaynadavis.com

I heard a terror analyst, avi lipkin, on radio one day mention he beleived and had been told that Iraq had its hand in Ok. City. In the end, who knows. I think its plausible, there was definitely a John Doe #2 they didn't go after. On other hand the official story is plausible as well.

A few points...

1) Laurie Mylroie and others have long made the case that Iraq had a hand in the first WTC bombings, but it has always been highly speculative.

2) The biggest thing of concern to me is the linkage between McVeigh's buddy (the dopey one of the two brothers) and the Phillipines, which I think crossed paths with some of the WTC-1 conspirators. Again, that's highly speculative, and points more to al-Qaeda than Iraq.

3) There were several Hawks in the Clinton administration that advocated for open war with Iraq - amongst them Al Gore and Hillary Clinton (per Kenneth Pollack's book "Gathering Storm"). If there was indeed substantial evidence of Iraq's involvement in OKC, then I think they would've taken action. That was certainly a time when the case that Iraq still had WMD and was actively trying to pursue them and/or preserve their production capabilities was pretty iron-clad.

4) The motivation for clandestine terrorist attacks is unclear to me. I don't understand why Sadaam would attack a federal building in middle America ... just to make himself "feel better"? Likewise, what does al-Qaeda gain if they attack and don't tell anyone?

I45owl Wrote:1) Laurie Mylroie and others have long made the case that Iraq had a hand in the first WTC bombings, but it has always been highly speculative.

I beleive this, they attacked on the 2yr anniversary of us liberating Kuwait from Saddam. Ramsey Youssef came into the US on an iraqi passport, thanks to us stupidly allowing Iraqi refugees to come the the US after Gulf War(in theory saddam could've sent agents undercover?).

the Hoover Institute put this site together which has alot of this chronicled, http://husseinandterror.com/

there is Abdul Rahman Yasin, Who Clinton put a $2 million dollar bounty on his head

Quote:This Indiana-born, Iraqi-reared terrorist remains wanted by the FBI for his role in the February 26, 1993 World Trade Center attack. President Bill Clinton's Justice Department indicted Yasin for mixing the chemicals in the bomb that exploded in the parking garage beneath the Twin Towers, killing six and injuring 1,042 people in New York.

AFTER the first WTC attack, he fled to IRAQ. and apparently since the war we've found Govt. docs in Iraq which showed him to be on the Govt. payroll.

Quote:Former ABC News correspondent Sheila MacVicar looked for Yasin, and here is what she reported on July 27, 1994: “Last week, [television program] Day One confirmed [Yasin] is in Baghdad…Just a few days ago, he was seen at [his father’s] house by ABC News. Neighbors told us Yasin comes and goes freely.” 15

and Ramsey Youssef was Khalid Sheik Mohammed's nephew, which is a 9/11 link.

Quote:4) The motivation for clandestine terrorist attacks is unclear to me. I don't understand why Sadaam would attack a federal building in middle America ... just to make himself "feel better"? Likewise, what does al-Qaeda gain if they attack and don't tell anyone?

a couple reasons, Saddam's ultimate goal was to be a modern day Saladin to the Islamic world. To do this he had to attack and make it appear he was kicking our and Israel's butt. If an Islamic leader is ever able to have the modern day Saladin label by the islamic world they'll all flock to him, scary.

otherwise, to show he could hit not only NY but middle america and not be formally tied to it, to scare us from any future Gulf Wars with him.

as for what AQ gains, well I'm sure the Islamic world cheered in the streets when they heard about the bombing of the Great Satan but other than that, good question.

I don't know either way, but something 'fishy' is at play and we the public have to realize we are not entitled to know and understand every detail because it blows the cover of our intelligence.

also, in the Federal Indictment of Bin Laden which came after Ok. City, it specifically mentions his ties to Iraq. Then of course in 1998 "Regime change in iraq" became policy and of course the State Dept. always listed Iraq as a State Sponsor of Terrorism, throughout the 90's.

GGniner Wrote:Ramsey Youssef ... Abdul Rahman Yasin ... Ramsey Youssef was Khalid Sheik Mohammed's nephew

Nothing really new there for me. I personally believe that there is some link, but I don't think this was masterminded by Iraq. As I recall, the actual identity of Youssef is long-disputed, and I think remains unclear. I would still characterize these links as speculative (semantics), but grant there is some evidence for them.

GGniner Wrote:

Quote:4) The motivation for clandestine terrorist attacks is unclear to me. I don't understand why Sadaam would attack a federal building in middle America ... just to make himself "feel better"? Likewise, what does al-Qaeda gain if they attack and don't tell anyone?

a couple reasons, Saddam's ultimate goal was to be a modern day Saladin to the Islamic world. To do this he had to attack and make it appear he was kicking our and Israel's butt. If an Islamic leader is ever able to have the modern day Saladin label by the islamic world they'll all flock to him, scary.

otherwise, to show he could hit not only NY but middle america and not be formally tied to it, to scare us from any future Gulf Wars with him.

as for what AQ gains, well I'm sure the Islamic world cheered in the streets when they heard about the bombing of the Great Satan but other than that, good question.

I don't know either way, but something 'fishy' is at play and we the public have to realize we are not entitled to know and understand every detail because it blows the cover of our intelligence.

Yeh... again for Sadaam to benefit, someone would have to know about it. When it comes to actions by states, there is more motive to keep the "hidden hand" hidden. But, I don't see this as a game Sadaam could win (as opposed to a successful assassination of GHWB).

IF there is a link, to me it is more likely that a couple of dumbf**k rednecks came in contact with AQ and they said, well, here's what you need to do... That is something akin to PLO-IRA-Red Brigade links, and is a far cry from an operation master-minded by Al-Qaeda or Iraq. There seems to be an odd mutual attraction between white supremicist groups and muslim terrorists that seems to occur in opposition to both ideologies.

The one thing that's intrigued me is the obvious link between OKC and Iraq - IIRC, McVeigh and the dopey one served together in the first conflict with Iraq ... what role did his service there play in their becoming that evil?

I45owl Wrote:Yeh... again for Sadaam to benefit, someone would have to know about it. When it comes to actions by states, there is more motive to keep the "hidden hand" hidden. But, I don't see this as a game Sadaam could win (as opposed to a successful assassination of GHWB).

I'm thinking that we'd know about it, through back channels, our intelligence and what not, but not be something that we could or would be able to formally pin on them on the global stage. With the main goal of sending a message to US to back off(no fly zones, etc), because we can do the unthinkable to you and you never know how, when, where, and who is going to do it, ie trump card.

If he had successfully assassinated GHWB, what would he have gained? Its all insane all the way around, so I think anything is plausible. The crazy thing about the assassination plot, GHWB allowed Saddam to stay in power, had he put the heat on them a little longer he may have fled in exile, instead GHWB signed a Cease Fire agreement with him which allowed him to remain in power....saddam probably viewed it as a sign of weakness or something.


the crazy neo-nazi's coming into contact with AQ, who is loosely tied with Iraq(i.e they support them but not on an operational level) is a good possibility too.

Quote:There seems to be an odd mutual attraction between white supremicist groups and muslim terrorists that seems to occur in opposition to both ideologies.

there are neo-nazi's that marched with Cindy Sheehan and hate the Iraq war, it sounds odd however I'd argue Nazism and the Islamo-fascist are of the same base ideology. They both hate the Jews also, it makes sense for them to ally the same way it does for Saddam and the Taliban or AQ to have some sort of alliance...common enemies.

Quote:The one thing that's intrigued me is the obvious link between OKC and Iraq - IIRC, McVeigh and the dopey one served together in the first conflict with Iraq ... what role did his service there play in their becoming that evil?

alot of interesting questions like that, I think its interesting the media reported on it a good bit post 9/11 but haven't since the war started.

GGniner Wrote:I'm thinking that we'd know about it, through back channels, our intelligence and what not, but not be something that we could or would be able to formally pin on them on the global stage. With the main goal of sending a message to US to back off(no fly zones, etc), because we can do the unthinkable to you and you never know how, when, where, and who is going to do it, ie trump card.

If he had successfully assassinated GHWB, what would he have gained? Its all insane all the way around, so I think anything is plausible. The crazy thing about the assassination plot, GHWB allowed Saddam to stay in power, had he put the heat on them a little longer he may have fled in exile, instead GHWB signed a Cease Fire agreement with him which allowed him to remain in power....saddam probably viewed it as a sign of weakness or something.

What is clear about the OKC bombing is that there we were able to arrest people that were guilty in perpetrating the crime, and we have ample reason to believe that we know why they did it. I think the notion that Saddam had a hand in it is a real stretch.

Saddam's history of involvement with terrorism is that it's been fairly overt and somewhat superficial. He publicly offered $50k bonuses to the families of suicide bombers against Israel, but he was mainly jumping on a bandwagon as a warped publicity stunt. I believe that Iran and Iraq used terrorist proxies during and after their war. Whether or not there were active links between Iraq and Al Qaeda, AQ would take action based on the conflict between the US and Iraq. eg, Iraq would claim that 1.5 million children died because of UN sanctions, and AQ would use that as a recruiting tool and as justification for their attacks.

I just don't see Saddam as willing to undertake covert action against the US and expect any good to come of it.

GGniner Wrote:

I45Owl Wrote:There seems to be an odd mutual attraction between white supremicist groups and muslim terrorists that seems to occur in opposition to both ideologies.

there are neo-nazi's that marched with Cindy Sheehan and hate the Iraq war, it sounds odd however I'd argue Nazism and the Islamo-fascist are of the same base ideology. They both hate the Jews also, it makes sense for them to ally the same way it does for Saddam and the Taliban or AQ to have some sort of alliance...common enemies.

Anti-semitism (that is, hatred of Jews for you and your ilk, observer) is merely a shared "value" of the two ideologies. Nazism and Islamism don't share similar ethical systems - I don't think you'd get very far arguing they're the same base ideology (any more than Fidel Castro's argument that Christianity and Communism are the same ideology ... noting that I reserve the right to resurrect that argument as I see fit...).

The fact is that Islam is antithetical to racism (in spite of the tribalism that permeates various Islamic societies), while racial supremacy is a fundamental tenet of various neo-nazi groups. Both ideologies share the notion that each would be content to have control over its own dominion while allowing the other group to have control of its dominion ... each, of course holding the eventual goal of global domination. But, I would characterize this as a quirk of each ideology - I don't view this as fundamental to the ideology as opposed to a consequence of their beliefs.

I45owl Wrote:Anti-semitism (that is, hatred of Jews for you and your ilk, observer) is merely a shared "value" of the two ideologies. Nazism and Islamism don't share similar ethical systems - I don't think you'd get very far arguing they're the same base ideology (any more than Fidel Castro's argument that Christianity and Communism are the same ideology ... noting that I reserve the right to resurrect that argument as I see fit...).

I think the Islamo-fascist, Nazi's, Communist, Imperial Japan etc. are all the same on an operational level, just differing ways on getting there. At their base they are for suppressing the individual(religion, free press, artistic expression, etc), through control of the state and power as an end unto itself. Thats the main character trait they all share and achieved through big, totalitarian police state govts, and its a global conquest ultimately of course.


as for Saddam, he was trying to become viewed to the Islamic World as a modern day Saladin, http://hnn.us/articles/1305.html

to be seen as so, you have to have a bogeyman(USA, Israel) and be viewed by the people as their savior who is defeating said bogeyman. The Middle East is piss poor for alot of reasons, so their dictators have to do this and blame all their problems on the West(Big and little Satan) to distract from the fact they are their own worse enemy. So anyway, I think he'd have lots of motive to hurt the US and Israel, they had already viewed us through their 7th Century prism as being a paper tiger(thanks to our actions the few decades) so if they could beat us they are then the modern day Saladin and would have the muslim world flock to them.

I just think, given that and all the acts of war he committed on the US after Gulf War(violating cease fire agreement, firing on planes) and trying to assassinate our President, that its not a stretch to think he had a hand in Ok. city or the TWA flight that is suspected, thinking the paper tiger would fold its hand. I think he was a major financier of terrorism more so than on operational level because it was in his interest and he was insane. I've heard/read a few different terror analyst mention that before, whether any of its true or not I guess we'll find out maybe a few decades down the road...

either way he's were he should be now: