108 suspects died in US custody

[Absinthe]

but it still could have happened.

"Could" is an irrelevance. Accept it.

 

[KoreBolteR]

"Could" is an irrelevance. Accept it.

if one member of my family was murdered and there was a guy who 'could' have known what happened, id be furiously wanting to know what he knew..

i wouldnt accept doing nothing.

 

[Absinthe]

if one member of my family was murdered and there was a guy who 'could' have known what happened, id be furiously wanting to know what he knew..

i wouldnt accept doing nothing.

Then you need to build up a case based on evidence. That's far from doing nothing.

However, if you find nothing on the guy, but still feel like beating the crap out of him because of what he may know, then you're just a vigilante nutjob.

 

[Calanen]

you mean like how the US did business with bin ladens family or how the US created al qaeda by giving a bunch of radical crazies weapons and money? I was watching the movie Rambo 3 last week ...I couldnt believe the propaganda bullshit they were pumping out at the time (mid 80's). In the movie they show desperate fighters, women and children who would later become the taliban ..it's funny how with a little bit of spin can change a valiant "freedom fighter" (which is what ronald reagan called the afghani fighter who included Bin Laden) into a terrorist pretty much overnight.

And so what that Osama Bin Laden's family does business with Bush or anyone else. They are one of the biggest construction companies in Saudi Arabia. Just because they are related to a terrorist does not mean that they are terrorists. Or are you saying that any muslim who is a terrorist necessarily must have involved their familes in the terrorist plot to? Not very PC of you Stern - might have to hand in your Left Socialist Worker Party Land Rights for Gay Whales badge for saying that one.

You are wrong again Stern. There were a whole heap of factions fighting in the Afghan war. And not all of them were Taliban crazies. A lot of them, in fact most of them were the Northern Alliance who got pushed out by the taliban who were backed by 'foreign fighters' from Pakistan and elsewhere. There are a whole lot of warlords who are not Taliban crazies. Which is why Afghanistan is so easily under control now, because most of the tribes there are not Taliban crazies and hated the Taliban crazies.

The Northern Alliance helped the USA drive the Taliban out. The Northern Alliance are moderates and are far from crazies. They fought in the Afghan war too. So to say that the USA armed the 'Taliban crazies' is incorrect. Osama Bin Laden fought against the Russians. But to imply that it was some big Osama Army is overly simplistic or that Al Quada today was the army that fought the Russians is wrong.

 

[CptStern]

And so what that Osama Bin Laden's family does business with Bush or anyone else.

well you dont think it was odd that the family of the person behind the biggest terrorist attack on the US was allowed, no, not allowed, given the means to return back to saudi arabia within days of 9/11? You'd think they'd at least want to question them as to osama's whereabouts

They are one of the biggest construction companies in Saudi Arabia. Just because they are related to a terrorist does not mean that they are terrorists. Or are you saying that any muslim who is a terrorist necessarily must have involved their familes in the terrorist plot to? Not very PC of you Stern - might have to hand in your Left Socialist Worker Party Land Rights for Gay Whales badge for saying that one.

:upstare: putting words in my mouth is like a competitive sport with you calanen. Where did I say a muslim=terrorist?

You are wrong again Stern. There were a whole heap of factions fighting in the Afghan war. And not all of them were Taliban crazies. A lot of them, in fact most of them were the Northern Alliance who got pushed out by the taliban who were backed by 'foreign fighters' from Pakistan and elsewhere. There are a whole lot of warlords who are not Taliban crazies. Which is why Afghanistan is so easily under control now, because most of the tribes there are not Taliban crazies and hated the Taliban crazies.

The Northern Alliance helped the USA drive the Taliban out. The Northern Alliance are moderates and are far from crazies. They fought in the Afghan war too. So to say that the USA armed the 'Taliban crazies' is incorrect. Osama Bin Laden fought against the Russians. But to imply that it was some big Osama Army is overly simplistic or that Al Quada today was the army that fought the Russians is wrong.

horse-manure!!, the mujahideen WAS made up of what is now the Taleban AND the northern alliance ...oh and guess who was a prominant member of the mujahideen? Osama Bin laden, who split from the mujahideen to become al quada

 

[seinfeldrules]

well you dont think it was odd that the family of the person behind the biggest terrorist attack on the US was allowed, no, not allowed, given the means to return back to saudi arabia within days of 9/11? You'd think they'd at least want to question them as to osama's whereabouts

Deceits 11-14:

Saudi Departures from United States

Deceits 11-14

Moore is guilty of a classic game of saying one thing and implying another when he describes how members of the Saudi elite were flown out of the United States shortly after 9/11.

If you listen only to what Moore says during this segment of the movie—and take careful notes in the dark—you’ll find he’s got his facts right. He and others in the film state that 142 Saudis, including 24 members of the bin Laden family, were allowed to leave the country after Sept. 13.

The date—Sept. 13—is crucial because that is when a national ban on air traffic, for security purposes, was eased

But nonetheless, many viewers will leave the movie theater with the impression that the Saudis, thanks to special treatment from the White House, were permitted to fly away when all other planes were still grounded. This false impression is created by Moore’s failure, when mentioning Sept. 13, to emphasize that the ban on flights had been eased by then. The false impression is further pushed when Moore shows the singer Ricky Martin walking around an airport and says, "Not even Ricky Martin would fly. But really, who wanted to fly? No one. Except the bin Ladens."

But the movie fails to mention that the FBI interviewed about 30 of the Saudis before they left. And the independent 9/11 commission has reported that "each of the flights we have studied was investigated by the FBI and dealt with in a professional manner prior to its departure."

McNamee, Chicago Sun-Times. (Note: The Sun-Times article was correct in its characterization of the Ricky Martin segment, but not precisely accurate in the exact words used in the film. I have substituted the exact quote. On September 13, U.S. airspace was re-opened for a small number of flights; charter flights were allowed, and the airlines were allowed to move their planes to new airports to start carrying passengers on September 14.)

Tapper: [Y]our film showcases former counter-terrorism czar Richard Clarke, using him as a critic of the Bush administration. Yet in another part of the film, one that appears in your previews, you criticize members of the Bush administration for permitting members of the bin Laden family to fly out of the country almost immediately after 9/11. What the film does not mention is that Richard Clarke says that he OK’d those flights. Is it fair to not mention that?

Moore: Actually I do, I put up The New York Times article and it’s blown up 40 foot on the screen, you can see Richard Clarke’s name right there saying that he approved the flights based on the information the FBI gave him. It’s right there, right up on the screen. I don’t agree with Clarke on this point. Just because I think he’s good on a lot of things doesn’t mean I agree with him on everything.

Jake Tapper interview with Michael Moore, ABC News, June 25, 2004. In an Associated Press interview, Clarke said that he agreed with much of what Moore had to say, but that the Saudi flight material was a mistake. Clarke testified to the September 11 Commission, on September 3, 2003, that letting the Saudis go "was a conscious decision with complete review at the highest levels of the State Department and the FBI and the White House." It's possible to read Clarke's 2003 statement as consistent with his 2004 statements; if you believe that what Clarke is saying now contradicts what he said in 2003, then Clarke is a liar, and all other claims he makes in Fahrenheit are discredited. Although he really did not make those claims for Fahrenheit; according to National Public Radio:

"I think Moore's making a mountain of a molehill," he said. Moreover, said Mr. Clarke, "He never interviewed me." Instead, Mr. Moore had simply lifted a clip from an ABC interview.

Fahrenehit includes a brief shot of a Sept. 4, 2003, New York Times article headlined "White House Approved Departures of Saudis after Sept. 11, Ex-Aide Says." The camera pans over the article far too quickly for any ordinary viewer to spot and read the words in which Clarke states that he approved the flights.



Like Clarke, most of the political figures in Fahrenheit 9/11 were not filmed by Moore; he used footage which had been shot by news organizations. The Internet Movie Database lists 40 public figures in the "cast" of Fahrenheit; of these, 37 are listed as from "archival footage."



Some Saudis left the U.S. by charter flight on September 14, a day when commercial flights had resumed, but when ordinary charter planes were still grounded. When did the bin Ladens actually leave? Not until the next week, as the the 9/11 Commission staff report explains:

Fearing reprisals against Saudi nationals, the Saudi government asked for help in getting some of its citizens out of the country….we have found that the request came to the attention of Richard Clarke and that each of the flights we have studied was investigated by the FBI and dealt with in a professional manner prior to its departure.

No commercial planes, including chartered flights, were permitted to fly into, out of, or within the United States until September 13, 2001. After the airspace reopened, six chartered flights with 142 people, mostly Saudi Arabian nationals, departed from the United States between September 14 and 24. One flight, the so-called Bin Ladin flight, departed the United States on September 20 with 26 passengers, most of them relatives of Usama Bin Ladin. We have found no credible evidence that any chartered flights of Saudi Arabian nationals departed the United States before the reopening of national airspace.

The Saudi flights were screened by law enforcement officials, primarily the FBI, to ensure that people on these flights did not pose a threat to national security, and that nobody of interest to the FBI with regard to the 9/11 investigation was allowed to leave the country. Thirty of the 142 people on these flights were interviewed by the FBI, including 22 of the 26 people (23 passengers and 3 private security guards) on the Bin Ladin flight. Many were asked detailed questions. None of the passengers stated that they had any recent contact with Usama Bin Ladin or knew anything about terrorist activity.

The FBI checked a variety of databases for information on the Bin Ladin flight passengers and searched the aircraft. It is unclear whether the TIPOFF terrorist watchlist was checked. At our request, the Terrorist Screening Center has rechecked the names of individuals on the flight manifests of these six Saudi flights against the current TIPOFF watchlist. There are no matches.

The FBI has concluded that nobody was allowed to depart on these six flights who the FBI wanted to interview in connection with the 9/11 attacks, or who the FBI later concluded had any involvement in those attacks. To date, we have uncovered no evidence to contradict this conclusion.

The final Commission Report confirms that Clarke was the highest-ranking official who made the decision to let the Saudis go, and that Clarke's decision had no adverse effect on September 11 investigations. See pages 328-29 of the Report.

Finally, Moore's line, "But really, who wanted to fly? No one. Except the bin Ladens," happens to be a personal lie. Stranded in California on September 11, Michael Moore ended up driving home to New York City. On September 14, he wrote to his fans "Our daughter is fine, mostly frightened by my desire to fly home to her rather than drive." Moore acceded to the wishes of his wife and daughter, and drove back to New York. It is pretty hypocritical for Moore to slam the Saudis (who had very legitimate fears of being attacked by angry people) just because they wanted to fly home, at the same time when Moore himself wanted to fly home.

(Deceits: 1. Departure dates for Saudis, 2. Omission of Richard Clarke's approval for departures, 3. Lying to Jake Tapper about whether Clarke's role was presented in the movie, 4. Moore himself wanted to fly when he says only the bin Ladens did.)



[Moore response: Provides citations showing that "the White House" approved the Saudi departures; does not cite or acknowledge Clarke's statement that he was the guy in the White House who approved the departures. Does not respond to Clarke's statement that the Saudi departures segment in Fahrenheit is "a mistake." Provides accurate citations for the dates of Saudi departures; does not address how the film misled viewers about when the departures took place. Cites the September 11 Commission (which says that the pre-departure interviews were "detailed" and other sources, including National Review, which say they were not).



Updated Moore response: In an impressively brazen display of mendacity, Moore claims that the September 11 Commission finding that Clarke approved the Saudi departures and that the decision went no higher proves that Fahrenheit is factually accurate.]

 

[CptStern]

smoke and mirrors, he's a crackpot gun pushing with an agenda so I'll just cross-reference:

oh lookee here:

"Sensational as these allegations may be, they appear to be only about half right....

But the questioning of the Saudis does not appear to be extensive. Some agents questioned the thoroughness of any Bureau examination of the departing Saudis. Former Bureau counter-intelligence chief Dale Watson told Unger that the group was "not subject to serious interrogation." Among the passengers, Unger writes, were two bin Laden relatives under investigation by the FBI. Writing in National Review, Byron York says the Bush administration still refuses to answer some basic questions, such as who in the White House allowed the bin Ladens to leave the country?"


source



still doesnt change the fact that the world most wanted man's family pretty much left with little to no interrogation ...which is strange because in the months after 9/11 according to the media and many americans anyone with foreign accent was suspect


I'm willing to meet you halfway seinfeldrules ...sure Moore got his facts mixed up, but it doesnt change the tone of the story ...the bin ladens walked away relatively scott free

 

[seinfeldrules]

So is Richard Clarke a liar or not Stern?

 

[CptStern]

So is Richard Clarke a liar or not Stern?

you tell me:

"Four successive US presidents have picked Richard Clarke to defend the country against terrorists."


btw what does this have to do with anything? Is bush a liar? is pinnochio a liar? did the cowardly lion really want courage or some nookie on the side ..these and other pertinant questions will be answered by the guy who thinks seinfeld rules

 

[seinfeldrules]

Just building a point.

Clarke said that he agreed with much of what Moore had to say, but that the Saudi flight material was a mistake. Clarke testified to the September 11 Commission, on September 3, 2003, that letting the Saudis go "was a conscious decision with complete review at the highest levels of the State Department and the FBI and the White House."

The final Commission Report confirms that Clarke was the highest-ranking official who made the decision to let the Saudis go, and that Clarke's decision had no adverse effect on September 11 investigations. See pages 328-29 of the Report.

 

[CptStern]

I still fail to see the co-relation. It's funny how you'll harp on and on about someone misrepresenting the truth yet the biggest lie to come out of the oval office since nixon you ignore ...you have some big cajones (gall). either that or you're a dupe in patriotic trappings

 

[Calanen]

how is it a spin? it says what it says ..108 people died while under US "care". How they died is somewhat immaterial cuz they all still turned up dead while in custody ..that in itself says something about conditions in these prisons

Its spin because - they could have died while trying to disarm an MP and take his weapon, beat an MP to death, during riots, while setting the prison on fire. Until you can put next to those 108 names - ie he died just because the USA killed him for no reason just cause we are a mean and evil people - the figures mean nothing.

For example, Canada has its own deaths on its hands that they need to be brought to justice for:

http://www.cmaj.ca/cgi/content/full/167/10/1127

Wendy Wobeser and colleagues present an analysis of mortality rates and causes of death among people in involuntary confinement in Ontario from 1990 to 1999. A particular strength of this paper is its epidemiologic approach, which involved examining reports of deaths in federal penitentiaries, provincial prisons and police cells. It is worth noting that it is usually a challenge for researchers to get valid information from such a range of different public authorities. The authors found 308 inmate deaths, of which 291 are described in detail. Rates of death by poisoning, suicide, homicide and natural causes were compared with the rates among Canadian men in the general population aged 25–49 years. The striking results are that rates of death by both violent and natural causes in custody exceeded by far the rates in the general population. Death by accidental intoxication (drug overdose) was 20 and 50 times more common among those in provincial and federal custody, respectively, and suicide by strangulation was 10 and 4.5 times more frequent. Furthermore, an excess number of deaths from cardiovascular disease was found as well, affecting a disproportionate number of young people.

Thats 308 deaths of prisoners under Canadian care, just in Ontario alone? Lot of explaining to do Stern. Doesn't matter how they died - just shows what an unjust and oppressive nation Canada is when prisoners die under their care. What if you took all of the provinces - the scandal would be immense. This is just Ontario alone. And don't believe any explanation about those prisoners in Canada dying because they took hostages or attempted to disarm corrective service officers or escape. Lies. All of it. Thats what Canada would want you to believe, wouldn't it? Don't be so naive..........

Clearly prisoners die in lots of places for lots of reasons. Just quoting numbers without saying in detail why, does not mean anything. If the US government or its employees have killed any prisoners unlawfully then they should be court martialled.

But just saying the prisons are appalling look at the number of people who died - misses the point.

 

[CptStern]

Its spin because - they could have died while trying to disarm an MP and take his weapon,

funny how you look at the improbable and ignore the probable

beat an MP to death, during riots, while setting the prison on fire.

we would had heard of it had that come to pass

Until you can put next to those 108 names - ie he died just because the USA killed him for no reason just cause we are a mean and evil people - the figures mean nothing.

well I can at the very least say that at least 27 were murdered ...I'm sure there isnt enough evidence to charge anyone in ALL 108 deaths but as the link clearly says they died violently ...notice how they said violently and not "peacefully" as in their death beds ..but VIOLENTLY ..say what you will but the responsibility lies with the US. It is they who have the responsibility once they become prisoners

For example, Canada has its own deaths on its hands that they need to be brought to justice for:

http://www.cmaj.ca/cgi/content/full/167/10/1127



Thats 308 deaths of prisoners under Canadian care, just in Ontario alone?

:upstare: you're grasping at straws ..ah I guess it's the last refuge of those who cannot argue effectively

it's really not a fair comparison: a prison system that systematically tortures people for information is not the same as an inmate in general population getting shived cuz he looked at someone's buttocks a little too long

Lot of explaining to do Stern. Doesn't matter how they died - just shows what an unjust and oppressive nation Canada is when prisoners die under their care.

grasping here calanen ..refuge of the weak-minded

What if you took all of the provinces - the scandal would be immense. This is just Ontario alone. And don't believe any explanation about those prisoners in Canada dying because they took hostages or attempted to disarm corrective service officers or escape. Lies. All of it. Thats what Canada would want you to believe, wouldn't it? Don't be so naive..........

thanks for wasting my time with utter nonsense

Clearly prisoners die in lots of places for lots of reasons. Just quoting numbers without saying in detail why, does not mean anything. If the US government or its employees have killed any prisoners unlawfully then they should be court martialled.

in a military tribunal ..what a freakin joke. 27 instances under investigation calanen ..that tells more than your letting on, unless that is, your truely are a top feeder and only see what you want to see ...I plumb the depths for the whole story not just the superfluous flotsam that the powers that be spoonfed us. 108 people died in US custody with the majority of the deaths being violent: there is only ONE interpretation: they died violently

But just saying the prisons are appalling look at the number of people who died - misses the point.

the point being "terrorism has been averted by the mighty red white and blue"? ..delusions of grandeur? or huckster-ish reciting of rehearsed propaganda? or is it blind foolishness that will ultimately come back to haunt the right in spades?

 

[Calanen]

you're grasping at straws ..ah I guess it's the last refuge of those who cannot argue effectively

Get off your high horse Stern. Re my arguing ability is much more effective than your arguing ability.....are we in grade school? Any argument you do not like must be poor advocacy. Has anyone ever paid you to argue for them? Im guessing no1 has. If you are truly the miracle advocate, pass the bar exam and be the next Johnny Cochrane.

My only point was that everywhere has deaths in custody. Even the great Canada. And if you don't examine in detail how those deaths came about - then there is no point in saying that 108 people died under US custody, which is nor more meaningful that saying 308 people died in Ontario custody. Your entire argument could be replaced with the total figures for Canadian deaths in custody and would be just as ridiculous.

Quoting deaths that are proven to have been caused by mistreatment demonstrates something meaningful.

Quoting the whole number of people that died and then saying it is immaterial how they died because they were under US care is ridiculous and biased.

Thats all I wanted to show, ie another point of view. But there is no room for any other point of view - only america is evil.............

 

[CptStern]

Get off your high horse Stern. Re my arguing ability is much more effective than your arguing ability.....are we in grade school? Any argument you do not like must be poor advocacy. Has anyone ever paid you to argue for them? Im guessing no1 has. If you are truly the miracle advocate, pass the bar exam and be the next Johnny Cochrane.

My only point was that everywhere has deaths in custody. Even the great Canada. And if you don't examine in detail how those deaths came about - then there is no point in saying that 108 people died under US custody, which is nor more meaningful that saying 308 people died in Ontario custody. Your entire argument could be replaced with the total figures for Canadian deaths in custody and would be just as ridiculous.

Quoting deaths that are proven to have been caused by mistreatment demonstrates something meaningful.

Quoting the whole number of people that died and then saying it is immaterial how they died because they were under US care is ridiculous and biased.

Thats all I wanted to show, ie another point of view. But there is no room for any other point of view - only america is evil.............

:upstare: selectively answering one line, and repeating the same points again to boot, there's that effective argumentation you're so proud of. I've already countered them, no need to continue, that is, unless you'd like to drag me further down into your quagmire of insipid innuendos and childish one-up-isms