Obama Plays Hide The Terrorist

Congress specifically prohibited Obama and Holder from moving terrorists from Guantanamo to U.S. soil, so the clown pair thumbed their big red bulb noses at Congress and did an end around, skipped Gitmo, and just flew the terrorist directly to New York, so they can tie up Manhattan traffic and waste millions of taxpayer dollars for extra security on a shaky, at best, pet project civilian trial.

Obama faces criticism from all sides for terrorism suspect’s offshore interrogation, civilian trial

After holding a Somali terrorism suspect for two months on a U.S. warship, the Obama administration secretly flew him to New York for trial in a civilian court, leaving both rights groups and Congress infuriated.

The clandestine imprisonment at sea echoed Bush-era – and widely condemned – efforts to deny detainees constitutional protections while interrogating them offshore. Meanwhile, opting to surreptitiously bring the Somali to a U.S. federal court not far from where New York’s twin towers once stood gives the President a chance to circumvent Congress, which has thwarted efforts to put high-profile al-Qaeda suspects on trial in civilian courts.

Ahmed Warsame, said to be in his mid-20s, is hardly a major figure. He is described as a go-between for Somalia’s militant Al-Shabab group and the shadowy al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, located mainly in Yemen.

According to U.S. officials, he willingly operated with interrogators on board a U.S. warship. Once they were finished with him, after two months, a “clean” team from the FBI read him his rights to keep silent and have a lawyer, but the officials said he waived those rights and kept talking.

See also:
Obama under GOP fire for bringing terror suspect to U.S.
New Terror War Tactic? Alleged Al Qaeda-Linked Operative Secretly Held 2 Months on US Navy Vessel
McConnell Blasts Administration for Handling of Somali Terrorism Suspect
Republican Lawmakers Angry Over Handling of Somali Terrorism Suspect
Rights of Somali suspect may pose issue: U.S. judge
Somali Is Charged With Aiding Al-Qaeda in Arabian Peninsula
First secret terror detainee under Obama was held for two months
Terrorism Case Reignites National Security Debate
Somali Terror Suspect Met With Awlaki in Yemen Before Capture, Official Says
Drift: How This Ship Became a Floating Gitmo
Ahmed Warsame and Law of War Detention

Ahmed Warsame was held for two months and interrogated without a lawyer or being read his Miranda rights and Obama and Holder thinks that’s okay because Warsame was eventually read his rights and then a “clean” FBI interrogation team was brought in for more questioning? How, exactly, is that going to work in Federal, civilian court? Warsame’s court appointed, free defense lawyers are going to have a field day at a picnic. And what about all the extra security that’ll be necessary?

/whatever angle you look at this public spectacle from, it’s going to be a circus at a zoo and you, the taxpayer, are going to pay for every last extra penny of Obama and Holder’s clown show

Our Friends The Pakistanis

Once again, Pakistan proves that they are far from being a trustworthy ally.

CIA chief in Pakistan flees after suspected ISI exposure

The Islamabad station chief of the Central Intelligence Agency hastily departed from Pakistan on Thursday after his cover was blown through a suspected deliberate leak by Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence.

Jonathan Banks was identified as the head of the CIA’s Pakistan office, in a lawsuit filed against the United States’ secretive spy agency by a resident of North Waziristan. The resident, Kareem Khan, was said to have filed the case against the CIA and Mr. Banks for their role in organising drone strikes that killed his son and brother.

The legal case brought by Mr. Khan called for murder charges to be brought against Mr. Banks and the CIA, and also reportedly said they should be executed for their crimes. Mr. Khan’s lawyer was quoted by the Guardian saying he had obtained Mr. Banks’ name from Pakistani journalists.

While Pakistan was quick to deny any involvement in leaking Mr. Banks’ name, U.S. officials were quoted as saying that since he had been identified publicly Mr. Banks “had received a number of death threats,” and they “strongly suspected” that the ISI had a hand in the leak.

See also:
CIA’s Pakistan chief removed
CIA Station Chief, His Cover Blown, Departs Pakistan
Cover Blown: CIA Station Chief in Pakistan Removed From Country
Pakistan Denies Outing US Spy
CIA Withdraws Pakistan Mission Chief
Pakistani spy agency denies it unmasked CIA chief
CIA Pulls Chief Spy From Pakistan
Top U.S. spy pulled from Pakistan after terror threats

Pakistan denies involvement in the leak? Oh, I see, it must have just been a lucky guess that just happened to correctly name the CIA station chief in Islamabad. Seriously, this is the thanks we get for pouring billions of dollars in annual aid down this rat hole? I’ve asked it before and I’ll ask it again, which side is Pakistan really on?

/they’re either with us or against us and, as far as I can tell, Pakistan is against us

Iranians Must Get Stoned

Ah yes, there’s nothing like the 7th century justice of Sharia law, carried out Iranian style.

Death by stoning imminent for Iranian woman, attorney says

Sakineh Mohammadie Ashtiani, a mother of two, is waiting to die in Iran by a method of execution described by her lawyer as “barbaric” — stoning.

She will be buried up to her chest, deeper than a man would be, and the stones that will be hurled at her will be large enough to cause pain but not so large as to kill her immediately, according to an Amnesty International report that cited the Iranian penal code.

The 42-year-old woman from the northern city of Tabriz was convicted of adultery in 2006, and her execution is imminent, said prominent human rights lawyer Mohammad Mostafaei.

Ashtiani was forced to confess after being subjected to 99 lashes, Mostafaei said Thursday in a telephone interview from Tehran.

She later retracted that confession and has denied wrongdoing. Her conviction was based not on evidence but on the determination of three out of five judges, Mostafaei said. She has asked forgiveness from the court but the judges refused to grant clemency.

Iran’s supreme court upheld the conviction in 2007.

See also:
‘Help us save our mother’: Pleas from the children of ‘adulterous’ Iranian woman who faces death by stoning
Iran: Children appeal for help in saving mother from execution
Iranian woman faces death by stoning
Iranian Woman Faces Being Stoned to Death for Adultery
Where is the world?
Iranian mother sentenced to death by stoning over adultery
Fear For Iranian Woman Facing Death By Stoning
Iranian woman sentenced to death by stoning
Sakineh Mohammadi Ashtiani to be Stoned to Death in Iran

Adultery as a capital crime, punishable by stoning, this is beyond barbaric. Isn’t Islam wonderful?

/and remember, these lovely people are on the verge of developing deliverable nuclear weapons

You Have The Right To Remain Silent . . . For Two Weeks

Score one for the police.

Supreme Court puts expiration date on ‘right to remain silent’

A crime suspect who invokes his “right to remain silent” under the famous Miranda decision can be questioned again after 14 days, the Supreme Court ruled Wednesday. And if he freely agrees to talk then, his incriminatory statements can be used against him.

In a 9-0 decision in a Maryland child-abuse case, the high court overturned a rule set in 1981 that barred the police from questioning a suspect once he had asked to remain silent and to speak with a lawyer.

Known as the “Edwards rule,” it was intended to prevent investigators from “badgering” a suspect who was held in jail after he had invoked his Miranda rights. In some cases, police had awakened a suspect in the middle of the night and asked him again to waive his rights and to admit to a crime.

In recent years, the rule has been understood to prevent police from ever requestioning a freed suspect, even for other crimes in other places. The justices said Wednesday that although the rule made sense for suspects who were held in jail, it did not make sense for suspects who had gone free.

“In a country that harbors a large number of repeat offenders, the consequence [of this no-further-questioning rule] is disastrous,” Justice Antonin Scalia said.

If there has been a “break in custody” and the suspect has gone free, Scalia said, the police should be allowed to speak with him after some period of time.

“It seems to us that period is 14 days,” he said. “That provides plenty of time for the suspect to get reacclimated to his normal life [and] to consult with friends and counsel.”

Then, if the suspect waives his rights and agrees to talk, any statement he makes can be used against him, the court said.

The ruling in Maryland vs. Shatzer reinstates a child-abuse conviction against a Maryland man who made incriminatory statements to a state investigator 2 1/2 years after he had first been questioned by police.

See also:
Maryland v. Shatzer
Maryland v. Shatzer
‘Miranda’ dealt one-two punch by high court
Court says inmate’s lawyer request no longer valid
Supreme Court rules that request for lawyer in questioning has expiration
Supreme Court hands police another victory in Miranda cases
High Court Sets Time Limit on Lawyer Request
Court Says Miranda Rights Don’t Bar Requestioning
Supreme Court eases rules for questioning suspects
Supreme Court: Police can question suspect after release
Miranda Rights Last for 14 Days, High Court Says
High court overturns Maryland child molestation decision
Edwards v. Arizona

Hooray for the Supreme Court, and it was a unanimous decision no less! Good deal, Miranda could use a good pruning. Ever since the uber liberal Warren Court pulled the Miranda warning scheme out of thin air, criminals have had way too much of an advantage over law enforcement when it comes to questioning.

/seriously, if a criminal is too stupid to know that they don’t have to confess to the police, they deserve to go to prison anyway, just for being that dumb

Seven Days, Three Stories, One Obama Appointee/Terrorist Sympathizer

It all started out innocently enough last Saturday, that is, of course, if you think the United States actually needs a special envoy to the Organization of the Islamic Conference.

Obama names U.S. envoy to Islamic Conference

President Obama announced Saturday the appointment of Rashad Hussain, a White House lawyer, to be his special envoy to the Organization of the Islamic Conference.

Obama made the announcement in a video conference to the U.S.-Islamic World Forum in Doha, Qatar. In his message, Obama called Hussain “an accomplished lawyer and a close and trusted member of my White House staff,” who would strengthen his policy of outreach to the world’s Muslims.

Then reporters, apparently unlike the White House vetters, started digging into Rashad Hussain’s background.

Obama’s Islamic Envoy Quoted Defending Man Charged With Aiding Terrorists

President Obama’s new envoy to the Organization of Islamic Conference, Rashad Hussain, is at the center of a controversy over remarks attributed to him defending a man who later pleaded guilty to conspiring to aid a terrorist group.

The Washington Report on Middle East Affairs quoted Hussain in 2004 as calling Sami al-Arian the victim of “politically motivated persecutions” after al-Arian, a university professor, was charged in 2003 with heading U.S. operations of the Palestinian Islamic Jihad.

The United States has designated the Palestinian Islamic Jihad as a foreign terrorist group as far back as 1997. At the time of al-Arian’s arrest, then Attorney General John Ashcroft called it “one of the most violent terrorist organizations in the world.”

Al-Arian pleaded guilty in 2006 to conspiracy to aid Palestinian Islamic Jihad and was sentenced to more than four years in prison.

Sounds bad for Hussain right? Never fear, when confronted with this disturbing sympathy for an admitted terrorist conspirator, the White House immediately rolled out story number one.

The White House says the controversial remarks defending al-Arian two years earlier were made by his daughter — not by Hussain. Both were part of a panel discussion at a Muslim Students Association conference, but the reporter covering the event told Fox News she stands by the quotes she attributed to Hussain, who was a Yale Law student and an editor of the Yale Law Journal.

The Web version of the 2004 article in the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs was later edited to delete all of Hussain’s comments. Editor Delinda Hanley told Fox News she believes the change was made in February 2009, though she does not recall who requested the edit.

Hanley remembered telling the group’s webmaster: “Let’s just take out the quotes since they have been attributed to the wrong speaker.”

Someone’s obviously lying. So, when the reporter refused to back down, out comes story number two.

He Said, She Said

Late Tuesday a White House official spoke with Hussain and confirmed to Fox News that Hussain did attend the 2004 event. The official says Hussain went with plans to discuss civil rights in the wake of 9/11, but remembers the conversation turning to Sami al-Arian’s case. According to the White House official, Hussain has “no recollection” as to whether or not he made the comments attributed to him.

We’ve now gone from flat out denial to a non-denial denial, he just can’t remember. But wait, there’s more, we’re not done yet, there are actual audio tapes and transcripts that exist! Cue up story number three.

President’s Envoy to Islamic Conference Admits Having Made Controversial ’04 Remarks

Presented with a transcript of his remarks at a 2004 conference, Rashad Hussain, President Obama’s nominee to be special envoy to the Organization of the Islamic Conference, issued a statement Friday evening acknowledging having criticized the U.S. government’s case against Sami Al-Arian, who pleaded guilty in 2006 to conspiracy to aid Palestinian Islamic Jihad.

Originally, the White House claimed that Hussain denied having made the comments, attributing them instead to Al-Arian’s daughter, Laila.

But Politico’s Josh Gerstein obtained an audiotape of the remarks, in which Hussain said that Al-Arian’s case was one of many “politically motivated persecutions.”

On Friday evening, Hussain admitted having made them and the White House backed off its insistence that Hussain hadn’t made the comments, though both noted that he did so in the context of disagreeing with the way the government pursued the case against Al-Arian, making clear not to address the specific criminal charges.

“As a law student six years ago, I spoke on the topic of civil liberties on a panel during which I responded to comments made about the al-Arian case by Laila al-Arian who was visibly saddened by charges against her father,” Hussain said in a statement. “I made clear at the time that I was not commenting on the allegations themselves. The judicial process has now concluded, and I have full faith in its outcome.”

Hussain, currently in the White House counsel’s office, said, “I made statements on that panel that I now recognize were ill-conceived or not well-formulated.”

Busted! Now, will Hussain be thrown under the bus where he belongs?

See also:
Islam envoy retreats on terror talk
Obama Envoy Admits ‘Ill Conceived’ Remarks Defending Terror Suspect
Obama OIC envoy designate admits to improper remarks in defending terror suspect
Obama OIC envoy designate admits to improper remarks in defending terror suspect
Cal Thomas: Who is Rashad Hussain?
Should We Believe Rashad Hussain?
The case of Rashad Hussain
The case of Rashad Hussain, part 2
Rashad Hussain’s Troubling Ties
Is White House Attorney Involved in Media Cover-up?
Questions for America’s New OIC Envoy Rashad Hussain
Event Attended by Obama’s Muslim Envoy Was Held by Group With Troubling Views, Ties
Pro-jihadist Rashad Hussain: Obama appointee’s connection to Soros

Is it just me or does it seem like pretty much everyone Obama appoints is some kind of anti-American radical or political miscreant?

/it’s really hard to believe that the Obama White House vetting process is this inept and ineffective, they have to know these peoples’ backgrounds and yet they appoint them anyway, because they’re fellow travelers