Axelrod re: Afghanistan & terrorists being tried in NYC

November 16, 2009

Are you aware that David Axelrod sits in the discussions about Afghanistan?

David Axelrod the WH’s resident lobbyist discussed Gitmo closure, Afghanistan decison and KSM being tried in NYC on State of the Union with John King (Lou Dobbs new replacement). Axelrod sets up Holder as the one responsible – barry was informed of the decision and the reasoning behind it. Axelrod admitted Gitmo won’t be closed completely, but wouldn’t give a deadline. He said they are going to “substantially meet the deadline”. barry said it would be closed. He ran on that and people voted for him because of it. Once the deadline passes – barry’s lies will be 100% complete and he will have been proven to be a complete fraud.

TRANSCRIPT

KING: Let’s begin with the controversial decision to try Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and four other 9/11 alleged conspirators in the federal courts in New York City, just a short walk from the site of the twin towers collapsing….This is Jim Webb, Democratic senator from Virginia who says, “they do not belong in our country, they do not belong in our courts, and they do not belong in our prisons.”

Why, David Axelrod, did the administration decide to take this step?

AXELROD:

Well, I think for the same reason that Mayor Bloomberg and others felt strongly that we should. We believe that these folks should be tried in New York City, as you say, near where their heinous acts were conducted, in full view in our court system, which we believe in.

Translation: barry wants to make an impression on the world – 9-11 family members be damned. Just like 9-11 anniversary – neither POTUS or FLOTUS went to NYC and they named Sept 11 day of service – like it needed naming. No reason why Michelle couldn’t have been there. And who are the “others”? And the heinous acts were an act of terrorism that resulted in the deaths of 2974 innocent people.

AXELROD: We’ve had, you know, since 2001, have had 195 terrorism cases in the courts, and we’ve been successful 91 percent of the time. We’re very confident about these cases, and we believe this is the appropriate thing to do.

And what if this trial ends in that 9%?

They’re relying on the jury to convict and totally ignoring the judge and whether the confession will be allowed. In civil court, torture obtained confessions are inadmissible. Period. It will come down to whether a terrorist, who has no rights under the Geneva Convention, and who carried out an unprovoked on American soil was read his rights.

AXELROD: This is a judgment the attorney general made in concert with the secretary of defense. As you know, there were five other cases that were sent to military commissions, but we feel strongly that justice will be done here.

And frankly it’s been a long time in coming. A lot of these cases have been delayed for many, many years. And now, the people who suffered so much in that attack will get the justice they deserve.

Did he ask them what they wanted?

A daily reminder? Having to look at the murderers face in the papers and in TV and all over the internet?

KING: We will have later in the program the former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani, who of course was the mayor when the horrible tragedy of 9/11 took place. And he is among those who say, to him, this reflects returning to a pre-9/11 mentality of treating terrorism as a crime, not an act of war. How would you answer that?

AXELROD: You know, it is odd, because when the 20th 9/11 bomber was tried in Virginia, in a civilian court, and convicted, Mayor Giuliani testified in that case and he heralded the outcome. So he may have changed his view, but we haven’t changed ours.

It may have had something to do with the muslim murderer in Texas.

KING: You mentioned this was the attorney general’s decision. How involved was the president of the United States?

AXELROD: Well, the president was informed of the attorney general’s decision and his reasoning for the decision. This was a decision for the attorney general to make, in concert with the secretary of defense.

Translation: Doesn’t go well, it’s Holder’s head.

KING: It is a reminder bringing these terrorists to New York City for trial, alleged terrorists, a reminder of the controversy about Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. We are just now two months and one week away from this promise from the president of the United States.

KING: If you talk, David Axelrod, to top officials at the Pentagon, top officials at the building you work at, in the White House, they say now it is a near impossibility that that deadline will be kept. When will Gitmo be closed?

AXELROD: We believe we are going to substantially meet the deadline. We may not hit it on the date, but we will close Guantanamo. And we are making good progress toward doing that.

“Substantially”?

Open – close are absolutes and barry said one year.

KING: Any idea? Two months, four months, six months more?

AXELROD: I‘m not going to put a deadline on it, John. But we are going to get it done. We are moving toward getting it done in all the different dimensions that are necessary to get it done. The president believes it is important to get it done and to end this chapter in our history. And we are going to get it done.

Too late you already have a deadline. And again, barry’s words mean nothing.

KING: Part of this chapter in our history is the 9/11 attacks, which, of course, were hatched in Afghanistan. And the president is closer to making this big decision he has to make about how many troops. When he makes that decision, will he lay out for the American people not only the rationale for the decision he has made, but an exit strategy for Afghanistan? If you travel the country as I do all the time, people keep saying, eight years later, how long is it going to take? How much is it going to cost? How many lives will be lost? Will the president give us an exit strategy?

AXELROD: Well, I think that is a concern. And it is obviously one of the factors the president is thinking through. We have been there for eight years; it is a long, long time. And we have to keep focused on what our purpose was in the first place. Our purpose was to disrupt and dismantle and destroy Al Qaeda. That remains our purpose.

But obviously we can not make an open-ended commitment. And we want to do this in a way that maximizes our efforts against Al Qaeda, but within the framework of bringing out troops home at some point. And the president has made that clear in all these discussions. There has to be a framework to this decision.

But we are getting close. It has been a good process.

And how many Americans have been killed? How many undeployed soldiers killed themselves so they wouldn’t have to go? He’s not going to make his decision until after the new year.

KING: As you know, conservatives have been critical of the president’s policy review, saying, why is it taking so long? The former Massachusetts governor and Republican presidential candidate, Mitt Romney gave a speech this weekend in which he said, not only why is it taking so long for the president to decide, but he also said, why is David Axelrod, his top political adviser, involved in these deliberations? Let’s listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MIT ROMNEY, (R-MA,) FMR. PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: I find it incomprehensible and inexcusable that this president invites David Axelrod into national security meetings. Polls and politics have no place at that table. He is the commander in chief. What has he been doing? Do you realize he carried out more than 30 campaign visits in this last season, for various Democrats? While he can’t make up his mind on Afghanistan, or have enough time to meet with generals, he is out there campaigning.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KING: Let’s take them in order. Why does David Axelrod deserve a seat at that table? And why is it taking so long?

AXELROD: Well, first of all, let’s be clear. David Axelrod does not have a seat at that table. I have observed these discussions because, as I am today, I have to help communicate the message of the administration. And so it is helpful for me to hear. I have not said a word in any of those meetings.

Now let’s take the second part. Governor Romney has to choose one argument or another. Either he has to say he is not paying attention or he has to say he is taking too long because he has been involved in a rigorous review.

The president has had hours and hours and hours of meetings with his military commanders, with his national security team, to run through every aspect of this, in order to get it right. And we’ve seen in the past what happens when we don’t do that; when we don’t do the necessary preparations. And he is determined to get Afghanistan right. It is something that Secretary Gates supports. It is something that the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff supports. General McChrystal has been supportive of this process.

And, you know, I know that Governor Romney has never had responsibility for any decision akin to this, and so he just may not be familiar with all that it entails. But I think the American people are being well served by a process that is assiduous and in which every aspect of this is considered. Because, after all, lives of American servicemen are involved here. An enormous investment on the part of the American people. We ought to get it right.

He’s Philosopher in Chief not Commander in Chief. Gen McCrystal had to force barry’s hand. It’s clear what he wants.

And why is Axelrod cleared to “observe”?

Who else is in there?

Tags: 9-11 murderers, 9-11 terror attacks, barry soetoro, GUANTANAMO BAY CLOSURE, Khalid Sheik Mohammed, , president obama, september 11 attacks, state of the union,

H1N1: 300 doses of vaccine reach Gitmo

November 10, 2009

Updated H1N1 posts/symptoms/vaccine

Source: AP

Pentagon: 300 doses of H1N1 vaccine have arrived at Guantanamo Bay. But it’s still not enough to cover all the troops and healthcare workers stationed there. It’s wrong. Troops and troop support should be a priority.

Also, “some” civilians who work at the Pentagon received an H1N1 vaccine yesterday. Didn’t state whether or not they were considered high risk.

barry stalling on gitmo report

July 20, 2009

Tomorrow barry’s minions were to have a report ready detailing barry’s policy on detaining terror suspects. Something Gibbs has been tap dancing around. Instead, the task forces have been given extensions: detention policy – 6 months and interrogation policy – 2 months. So that means the detention policy task force report will be due on the anniversary of his executive order that said he would have Guantanamo Bay shut down in a year. How can that be take as anything other than evidence that it will not be closed as promised?

ACLU’s Executive Director ANTHONY ROMERO:

The Obama administration must not slip into the same legal swamp that engulfed the Bush administration with its failed Guantanamo policies. Any effort to revamp the failed Guantanamo military commissions or enact a law to give any president the power to hold individuals indefinitely and without charge or trial is sure to be challenged in court and it will take years before justice is served.

The only way to make good on President Obama’s promise to shut down Guantanamo and end the military commissions is to charge and try the detainees in established federal criminal courts. Any effort to do otherwise will doom the Obama administration to lengthy litigation. A promise deferred could soon become a promise broken.

Source: CNN

Former Gitmo detainee leading attack against Marines in Afghanistan

July 10, 2009

According to FOX, a former Guantanamo Bay detainee, Mullah Zakir (aka Abdullah Ghulam Rasoul) is leading the fight against the Marines’ Operation Khanjar in the Helmand province of Afghanistan. Zakir surrendered in Afghanistan in 2001 – was transferred to Gitmo in 2006 and then was released to Afghan custody 2007. Not sure what the “custody” entails because he was “released” from it in 2008. Shortly thereafter Taliban chief Mullah Omar appointed him as senior military commander.

Why was he released?

They quote an anonymous defense official:

We were under incredible pressure from the world to release detainees at Gitmo. You just don’t know what people are going to do.

He was no worse than anyone else being held at Guantanamo Bay. He was not going to be tried for war crimes so we decided to release him. Either he was not thought to have committed a crime or we didn’t have enough evidence to prosecute him.

The country which agreed to take him promised to take steps to mitigate the threat he posed.

How are they going to do that and what is their incentive?

In March 2009, 37 ex-detainees had returned to fighting the US. Don’t know the more recent number

Gibbs refuses to comment re: detainees found not guilty

4

June 10, 2009

Roberts Gibbs is asked about the disposition of detainees found not guilty — specifically if they will be let free. He refuses to respond on the grounds of “hypotheticals”. He responds 12 times and 7 of the times he uses the word hypothetical and then “when a verdict comes” and “if it ever comes to fruition” and once it’s just “sure”.

Where’s this transparency? This accountability? This guarantee for fair trials?

Yo WH press corps – how long are you going to allow yourselves to look like fools?

June 9th PRESS BRIEFING

Q Two questions about developments today, one regarding Ghailani’s trial, him being flown to the United States. If any of the detainees who are brought to trial through the U.S. criminal courts, or even through military commissions, if any of them are found not guilty, will the administration let them free?

MR. GIBBS: Well, I‘m not going to get into hypotheticals about –

Q Well, forget the military commissions –

MR. GIBBS: I’m not going to get into hypotheticals about the court cases, either.

Q Well, this is an important part of the — you’re talking about a credible justice system, bringing these people to justice. You’ve spoken at great length about this, the President has. If they are found not guilty, will they be found –

MR. GIBBS: Well, let’s discuss that if it ever comes to fruition.

Q But isn’t that what is underlying a credible justice system, the idea that if you’re found not guilty you’ll be free?

MR. GIBBS: Sure.

Q So –

MR. GIBBS: But I’m not going to get into hypotheticals about how certain cases may or may not play out.

Q So you’re not willing to commit to freeing people if they’re found not guilty?

MR. GIBBS: I’m not willing to get into playing hypothetical games.

Q It’s not a game, Robert. It’s a question about the credibility of the justice system.

Q It’s the principle of it –

MR. GIBBS: No, it’s – I’m not debating legal principles. I’m just not getting into the hypothetical back-and-forth of what happens on a case.

Q Okay. So the Obama administration is refusing to say that if somebody is found not guilty they will be set free?

MR. GIBBS: Jake, I’m not going to get into hypotheticals about specific outcomes of cases.

Q I’m not asking you to talk about a specific case. I’m talking about in general –

Q And for all the detainees brought into this system of justice, which the administration said can and has in the past handled adequately — more than adequately, according to your talking points this morning — the terrorism cases brought before it in whatever venue — if that justice system, which the administration says should be trusted, renders a verdict of not guilty, is that person released?

MR. GIBBS: We will talk about what happens about a verdict when a verdict comes.

Q Well, then how is the world supposed to have any confidence that this new system of justice that you guys are ensuring is going to be the case with the detainees is actually credible?

MR. GIBBS: We think the Southern District of New York has a very good record as it relates to trying and convicting terror suspects.

Q I believe what you’re — the fact sheet said this morning was that it has a 90-percent success rate.

MR. GIBBS: I think 90 is pretty good.

Q I’m not questioning whether 90 is pretty good; I’m asking about the 10 percent.

MR. GIBBS: And I’m, in this specific case, not going to get into those hypotheticals.

POTUS statement re: Military Commissions

May 15, 2009

He doesn’t use the word torture but does use terrorist.

From the WH website. Bullets and emphasis added.

Statement of President Barack Obama on Military Commissions

Military commissions have a long tradition in the United States. They are appropriate for trying enemies who violate the laws of war, provided that they are properly structured and administered. In the past, I have supported the use of military commissions as one avenue to try detainees, in addition to prosecution in Article III courts. In 2006, I voted in favor of the use of military commissions. But I objected strongly to the Military Commissions Act that was drafted by the Bush Administration and passed by Congress because it failed to establish a legitimate legal framework and undermined our capability to ensure swift and certain justice against those detainees that we were holding at the time. Indeed, the system of Military Commissions at Guantanamo Bay had only succeeded in prosecuting three suspected terrorists in more than seven years.

Today, the Department of Defense will be seeking additional continuances in several pending military commission proceedings. We will seek more time to allow us time to reform the military commission process. The Secretary of Defense will notify the Congress of several changes to the rules governing the commissions.

The rule changes will ensure that:

• First, statements that have been obtained from detainees using cruel, inhuman and degrading interrogation methods will no longer be admitted as evidence at trial.

• Second, the use of hearsay will be limited, so that the burden will no longer be on the party who objects to hearsay to disprove its reliability.

• Third, the accused will have greater latitude in selecting their counsel.

• Fourth, basic protections will be provided for those who refuse to testify.
  

• And fifth, military commission judges may establish the jurisdiction of their own courts.

These reforms will begin to restore the Commissions as a legitimate forum for prosecution, while bringing them in line with the rule of law. In addition, we will work with the Congress on additional reforms that will permit commissions to prosecute terrorists effectively and be an avenue, along with federal prosecutions in Article III courts, for administering justice. This is the best way to protect our country, while upholding our deeply held values.

Guantanamo Bay

[Either lost or never posted.]

January 25, 2009

barry wants to close down Guantanamo bay and give detainees due process?

How can you release savages whose only expressed purpose in life is to kill Americans and rally more to do the same? The Geneva Convention did not have these evil killing machines and human detonators in mind. WWII vet still can't understand the Japanese Komikaze's actions but they were defending their honor, their Emperor and their country during a war against their known enemy, who was willingly engage in the fight. Pearl Harbor was not entirely unexpected.

The guilty beasts do not deserve to roam free. The problem is deciphering the truly innocent. But if the innocent have been treated as if guilty - what are their sentiments now? Is it possible to walk out of their without hatred toward their captors and American in general?

What is clear is that the evil ones can never be let free. And that they do not deserve the benefits afforded American citizens, including due process. To do so would fly in the face of the 2973 innocents murdered on 911 and disrespect all the American POWs.

Why can't Guantanamo Bay still be utilized with UN overseeing? They needed to be housed somewhere and not in America. Sending them to foreign lands - especially Arab countries will accomplish nothing. What interest do they have in them? The Arab world doesn't even care about keeping the innocent Palestinians safe.

Bottom line will always be retribution. If nations help - they will be targeted. Simple as that.

And if you don't want them in Guantanamo Bay then lock them up in Alcatraz.

Anyway. Here's a couple of interesting articles to read for thiose who want to bring these beasts to the American mainland.

The Memri blog has a story about a video Message from Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula posted on Al-Faluja on January 23rd that reportedly shows four beasts - two of whom were released from Guantanamo Bay - urging their fellow savage beasts to:

• Assist the Palestinians in Gaza.
• They called for attacks on Western interests in order to pressure them to stop aiding Israel.
• They warned imprisoned mujahideen of the Saudi "counseling program to reeducate extremists".
• And they cautioned the Saudis to stop protecting Western embassies, churches, and military bases.

I cannot vouch for the accuracy of this report and in order to read the rest one has to register to sign in. Not happening. Our blog has enough problems with censorship.

It's time for barry and The American People to realize that a stump line promise made before hearing a single Intelligence briefing means absolutely nothing.

Yes. Torture is not acceptable.

Yes. Innocents should be weeded out.

And yes. Future captured guilty and avowed killers should be treated humanely.

But they should never be allowed on US mainland soil. The risk is too great. Witness how American gangs already operate from inside American prisons.

Recall how barry made a politically expedient speech about Iraq in 2002. Recall how he said folks should have read the intelligence briefings before making a decision about Iraq. Recall how he took that speech off his website until it was politically expedient again. Recall how he ever spoke out in 2004 at the Convention. Where was his superior judgment and readiness to lead then?

Recall how he said he could not have been sure what he would have done. Recall how he did not speak out about Iraq until over a year passed once he got to the Senate. Recall how he voted exactly the same as Senator Clinton once he got there and that he did not hold meetings in his Senate committee to further efforts in Afghanistan - the reason why he spoke out against Iraq.

Recall his stance when he announced his run for presidency in February 2007. He said he would have combat troops home by March of 2008. Home 13 months from his announcement - 2 months after the Iowa caucus - 5 months before the Convention - 8 months before the general election and 10 months before his potential Inauguration.

Superior judgment?

Recall his changing position on Iraq prior to Iowa, throughout the Primaries, during the general, during the transition and now. What are they at present? Anyone? Deferring to his commanders and a responsible withdrawal? Why is he conferring with Senator McCain who wants to keep troops there "for a 100 years"?

How did barry's positions on Iraq differ from Senator Clinton's? The woman he said only experience in visiting 83 countries - at least 50 countries and 2 continents more that he - was having tea with ambassadors? The woman who received the same amount of votes? The woman he picked for Secretary of State?

Experience vs judgment?

Whose judgment and experience is he relying on?

Who had it all along?

gitmo - whose rights are barry putting first?

February 2, 2009

barry's continually changing, still concerned about the polls, idealistic words on closing Guantanamo Bay as said in an interview with NBC.

Source: Reuters

BARRY: Can we guarantee that they're not going to try to participate in another attack?

No.

But what I can guarantee is that if we don't uphold our Constitution and our values, that over time that will make us less safe. And that will be a recruitment tool for organizations like al-Qaeda.

Define "over time" and then define how many Americans one freed savage can kill and how many more fellow savages they can infect, who will then go on to kill....and kill...and kill...

If they don't get out - they can't kill.

If they don't get out - they can't recruit.

If they weren't savages going in - they most likely are now.

And if there are some who still are not - they will become so or face beheading by their compatriots.

Is it going to be easy? No, because we've got a couple hundred of hard-core militants that, unfortunately, because of ... some problems that we had previously in gathering evidence, we may not be able to try in ordinary courts but we don't want to release.

You want to afford savages rights and due process? Was Senator John McCain afforded the same rights you plan on affording these savages?

You want to bring them to American soil? Then spend some of that bailout money on Alcatraz and bypass soil altogether. That would actually create some of those job you keep speeching about.

I have to make the very best judgments I can make in terms of what's going to keep the American people safe and ... what's going to uphold our Constitution and our traditions of due process.

What type of judgment have you shown in picking cabinet members? "I screwed up" takes on a different meaning when talking about terrorists and innocent law abiding, tax-paying American citizens - the kind you seem, in your infinite wisdom, to be having difficulty finding.

And what I'm convinced of is -- we can balance those interests in a way that makes all of us proud but also assures that we're not attacked.

Bringing savages to the mainland would allow their fellow savages tangible access to them and would put every single man woman and child in the vicinity of that prison at risk -- including natural born citizens whose sympathies might lie elsewhere or who might just be desperate enough for drugs, food, shelter, or medicine for their children that they would do something they would not have otherwise done if the situation hadn't presented itself.

You, Mr President, would be willingly importing terrorism into the United States of America.

herr olbermann

January 26, 2009

herr olberman is out of control...even for him. He goes on and on about Guantanamo Bay when he has never been there or seen first hand what has gone on there. He is certain he knows how many - or how few - detainees have gone on to attack Americans and then in the next sentence says he doesn't know how many people are at Gitmo. Then he was speaking with a man who used to interrogate terrorists in Iraq who said that the number one recruiting tool was Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib. And what does olbermann do? He shows a videotape of someone being warterboarded. What is it going to take for him to realize his "show" is also a recruiting tool?

Gitmo: what's barry saying lately?

January 17, 2009

What are the chances barry closes down Guantanamo Bay on day 1 like promised? What good is an executive order that never gets executed? Anyone think it will happen in his first term? And they sure better not be brought to the US and given rights afforded the people they have vowed (and have gone back) to kill. How many daily briefings is he going to need to figure it out?

(ADAM LEVINE/CNN)

(11-12-08) Washington Post

OBAMA ADVISOR: There is always a risk of acquittal, and there is a risk some people who are released will return to the battlefield. There is no risk-free option.

(1-11-09) This Week. Stephanopoulos asks if barry will close it in the first 100 days?

OBAMA: That's a challenge. I think it's going to take some time and our legal teams are working in consultation with our national security apparatus as we speak to help design exactly what we need to do. But I don't want to be ambiguous about this. (??) We are going to close Guantanamo and we are going to make sure that the procedures we set up are ones that abide by our constitution.

(1-14-09) DENVER POST

61 of the 520 released detainees have returned to killing Americans. In March, 37. That's an increase from 7% - 11%.

How many innocent Americans can one suicide or car bomber kill? And all 61?

What about the ones who haven't died or been caught? The ones they have lost track of? It has to be much higher number than that. And then add in all the ones they will infect.

They should implant little GPS chips into them. Maybe an anti-detonation device. And then castrate them. Go ahead and sue me. There are a bunch of Yemeni savages who will go home and "marry" their 10 y/o cousins to create more hate and oppression.

Why such care and concern for human rights in a camp detaining criminals sworn to kill when there is none for the little girls whose souls they are killing every night?

How is waterboarding a vowing to continue to kill terrorist compare to the repeated raping of a 10 y/o child by a man 2-6 times her age?

Those cavemen choose their punishment - the little girls do not.

(1-15-09) CNN

Holder's confirmation hearing. A third group of inmates, Holder indicated, can't be tried "for a variety of reasons" but also can't be released because they are too dangerous. For that reason, the Obama administration won't be able to close the Guantanamo Bay detention facility "as soon as we'd like."

(1-16-09) NewsOK

There's campaigning and there's governing. There's rhetoric and there's policy...Until Obama figures it all out, the grand pronouncements on Gitmo are just more political grandstanding.

(1-16-09) Washington Post: EU not yet asked to take Gitmo detainees

(11-20-08) English al-Jazeera spin on it

(11-7-08) Four reasons Obama won't close Gitmo soon.

(1-16-09) Excellent recap with barry's own words