Did you actually READ the article you reference before writing this? I mean beyond the early paragraph which you quoted.

The affadavits weren't changed because the accused terrorists were innocent, they were changed to protect the rest of the related investigation.

The original affadvits included a bunch of sensitive information which was not necessary for the indictment so they were replaced.

There's no indication that these guys don't deserve to be arrested and indicted and tried and ultimately convicted as terrorists - a trial will still determine that. From the article I concluded that their lawyers are just trying to use the change in affadavits to strengthen their defense on a technical basis.

Dave

The terrorist allegation were dropped because they turned out to be nonsense.

Of course, these people are guilty... of something. But them saying that they trained in an Al-Qaeda camp in Rawalpindi, Pakistan, can not be true.

Let me explain.

I am an American and have been to Rawalpindi many many times. Rawalpindi is a small town that is now part of Islamabad, where I still live. There is no place to hide here.

Rawalpindi has a large airbase, where *American* pilots are often seen. Rawalpindi is also the location of Pakistan Army's headquarters. American troops and Generals are seen there all the time as well.

I go to Rawalpindi for shopping every week.

For this terrorist person to say that he trained in Rawalpindi, is impossible to be true. He is lying for reasons of his own. But I'm sure the truth will come out soon enough. The FBI should turn the screws on this guy.

I didn't catch that they'd said the terrorist camp was in Rawalpindi. That's just silly. My understanding that the camp is one which was previously located in far northern Pakistan on the Afghan border and is no longer there. Perhaps they got there by flying into Rawalpindi and travelling overland from there, thus leading to the confusion.

Dave

No, it was reported on CNN. This guy said he trained in an Al-Qaeda camp "in Rawalpindi". This was a pretty specific detail that made me sit up and go "huh?".

You can't travel overland into the mountains without being stopped at a hundred different checkpoints the Paks have set up. And if the security guys here sense anything Al-Qaeda-ish, they open fire, no questions asked. It is surprising but the Paks hate Al-Qaeda more than we do. (they don't like Americans much either, LOL)

I doubt if any Al-Qaeda camp can operate in this country. Or in Afghanistan (full of our guys).

Of course, Iran is another story.

I think the key thing is that he trained there a couple of years ago before security was as tight as it is now, and the camp may well be gone now.

Dave

That's just it. he said he trained in or near Rawalpindi in 2003-2004.

If he had said 2000 or 2001, then maybe.... but 2004 is just plain ridiculous. Security was as tight then as it is now. And Rawalpindi is out of the question no matter what year he mentions. You just can't hide anything here.

All this is very strange.

If he had even GONE there in 2003, 2004 the government would have already known who he was, where he was going and why he was going there.

I can certainly undersrtand why they dropped these details out of the affadavit, but I wonder what is actually going on with these guys.

Dave

"The affadavits weren't changed because the accused terrorists were innocent, they were changed to protect the rest of the related investigation.

The original affadvits included a bunch of sensitive information which was not necessary for the indictment so they were replaced."

Well, two things, if the investigation was so sensitive, shouldn't someone in the Justice Department be fired for releasing the original affidavit all over the place, possibly blowing this sensitive investigation?

Second, re read this part of the quoted article "''The first version of the affidavit released to media organizations by the Justice Department in Washington said potential terrorist targets included hospitals and groceries, and contained names of key individuals and statements about the international origins of ''hundreds'' of participants in alleged al-Qaida terrorist training camps in Pakistan"

So it's okay to let the press read all this info, but it's too dangerous to national security to have the exact same information entered into the court record?

Does not compute. However, let's see what does compute, remember this recent history?

"Following the detentions of Yaser Hamdi and Jose Padilla, Attorney General Ashcroft made similarly bold statements, using powerful language and imagery from the September 11 attacks. While not suspected of the planning or carrying out of that day's terrorism, Attorney General Ashcroft implied that Hamdi and Padilla were directly involved.

In addition, Ashcroft implied that Hamdi was responsible for the death of CIA agent Johnny Spann, who had been recently killed in Afghanistan. He did not, however, cite any evidence to support such a charge. Nor has he brought an indictment for this, or any other crime, against Hamdi. Instead, he had been holding Padilla and Hamdi - both U.S. citizens - incommunicado in military prisons, where they are being detained without any time limit or prospect of release, or any access to a lawyer or family members." from: Has Attorney General John Ashcroft, In Alleged Terrorism Cases, Violated Government Ethics Rules Governing Prosecutors' Comments About The Accused?.

Pretty threatening, eh? The government must have had a lot of stuff going on behind the scenes that we just weren't allowed to see, eh?

Recall the next bit of history? Hamdi released to Saudi Arabia without a single charge against him.

Well, if someone tells you a fib, why on earth do you trust them THIS time? I advise you to steer clear of used car salesmen for your own good. You are too trusting.

>>Well, if someone tells you a fib, why on earth do you trust them THIS time? I advise you to steer clear of used car salesmen for your own good. You are too trusting.<<

So, are you planning on setting up an alternative Justice Department and Department of Homeland Security for us, BTP?

I'm all for accountability, but unless we're going to scrap out current institutions and start over, we have to muddle through and deal with whatever shortcomings they have, including a certain amount of incompetence and overenthusiasm.

Dave

Monsieur Nalle sez..
*I'm all for accountability, but unless we're going to scrap out current institutions and start over, we have to muddle through and deal with whatever shortcomings they have, including a certain amount of incompetence and overenthusiasm.*

OMFG...sometimes, Mr Nalle, you just freak me right out...

if this exact same thing had happened prior to 2000, folks would be pissing blood and chewing rocks while frothing at the mouth like Cujo on a summer's afternoon...

accountability...fuck yes, notice NO investigations of the bullshit pulled..of course not, the lying bastards may eat their own young , but they won't look into each other's dirty laundry...

ok..that was a bit angry..

and why is your humble Narrator so peeved?

incompetence or lying

so many times in this Administration it comes down to the only possibilities being one or the other

and i fucking hate both, and expect more from our elected and appointed Representatives...

silly of me, i know...i'm such the starry eyed Dreamer

you know..hoping to get, oh..i dunno..Honesty and Fairness out of the fucking JUSTICE department

but hey..according to Mr Nalle and other GOP apologists, we just have to expect that and live with *a certain amount of incompetence and overenthusiasm.*

so i guess they just want to renew the "Patriot Act" and add a clause where they each get shiny new jackboots while they sing "Homeland, Homeland, uber alles"

the Management would like to apologize for the previous rantings, it seems the typist was off his meds once again...don't worry, a few blasts of electro shock and some time in a coldpack while listening to repeating loops of Zamfir's magical pan flute should have him fit and ready soon...

bleh...

Excelsior!

Gonzo, it's not yet clear that there's any real incompetence involved here yet. And this isn't a matter of GOP vs. Democrats, it's a matter of non-partisan government bureaucrats who were likely employed undero Clinton as well, having trouble doing their jobs in the current environment. Terrorism isn't what the FBI was originally designed to deal with, and some of their agents clearly haven't quite figured out how to do their jobs effectively in a post 9/11 world.

That's where accountability comes into play. If they're doing their job badly they need to be corrected, given additional training, reassigned, punished or whatever seems appropriate given their shortcomings.

Plus this isn't a 'jackboot' situation, from all accounts it's much more innocent than some sort of conspiracy to trample on peoples rights. Do try not to jump to that conclusion at every opportunity.

Dave

Mr Nalle sez..
*That's where accountability comes into play. If they're doing their job badly they need to be corrected, given additional training, reassigned, punished or whatever seems appropriate given their shortcomings.*

we have total Agreement here..just like i pretty much agreed with Mr Nalle Posting about Responsibility last week..

my problem lies in not taking it far enough...

"the buc stops here"

remember that one?

you have these Incidents laid out in this Post...

that silly WMD thing...

the GAO reports of 9 billion in cash missing with no receipts in Iraq (pallets full of cash just gone)

over 200 Gitmo detainees released 3 years after being arrested by military tribunals who stated that they should not have been there inthe first place

record surplus to record defecits(NOT counting the costs of war in Afghanistan or Iraq)

the Patriot Act

on and on....examples of cases where either the Citizens have been lied to, or those working for us were totally incompetent

do i need to go further?

and i care not a whit which Party the perpetrators belong to...but in this case (you know, like the current Attorney Generals legal writings about torture when he was legal counsel to the President) and many others, it seems this Administration falls short...then NEVER takes Responsibility, not is held Accountable...

that's the Problem...i'll keep pointing out the Symptoms

nuff said?

Excelsior!

Mr Nalle sez..
*That's where accountability comes into play. If they're doing their job badly they need to be corrected, given additional training, reassigned, punished or whatever seems appropriate given their shortcomings.*

we have total Agreement here..just like i pretty much agreed with Mr Nalle Posting about Responsibility last week..

my problem lies in not taking it far enough...

"the buc stops here"

remember that one?

you have these Incidents laid out in this Post...

that silly WMD thing...

the GAO reports of 9 billion in cash missing with no receipts in Iraq (pallets full of cash just gone)

over 200 Gitmo detainees released 3 years after being arrested by military tribunals who stated that they should not have been there inthe first place

record surplus to record defecits(NOT counting the costs of war in Afghanistan or Iraq)

the Patriot Act

on and on....examples of cases where either the Citizens have been lied to, or those working for us were totally incompetent

do i need to go further?

and i care not a whit which Party the perpetrators belong to...but in this case (you know, like the current Attorney Generals legal writings about torture when he was legal counsel to the President) and many others, it seems this Administration falls short...then NEVER takes Responsibility, not is held Accountable...

that's the Problem...i'll keep pointing out the Symptoms

nuff said?

Excelsior!

"non-partisan government bureaucrats who were likely employed undero Clinton as well, having trouble doing their jobs in the current environment."

I have no problem with that, I have a problem with the partisan political appointment types directly under the administration stretching the facts to support an administration trying to pass more "Patriot Act" civil liberty take aways.

I don't have a problem with the affidavit that was acually filed, I have a problem with the affidavit that was passed to the press, passed to the press certainly under the approval of partisan appointees, most likely approved by Alberto himself.

If the investigation was so sensitive, the press releases could have been held off until the CONVICTION of these "terrorists". What was the point of releasing this information to the public which apparently was too dicey to put before a judge who was in a position to hold them accountable for what they say?

Well, it's part of the whole pattern of the Iraq war, make big accusations, scare people into doing what you want, the accusations fall apart later, but just pretend it didn't happen and no body will actually call you a flat out liar, apparently even if you do this over and over again...

A mouse in a maze who repeatedly gets the cheese its shown swapped for an electric shock will eventually stop reaching for the cheese.

How many administration press releases will you keep believing? Will they fool you once (WMDs), twice (Hamdi), three times (Iraqis connected to 9-11 but Saudi Arabia NOT connected), how many times will it take for Americans to show a little self-esteem and say "hey, knock that off, quit lying to me!!"

I am becoming ever more convinced that the current groups of Republicans and Conservatives who support Bush are just born victims, begging to be stepped on...

In this specific case the buck doesn't travel all that far. Accountability rests with the specific agents and the local FBI office. You can't take administrative problems in a local FBI office or the incompetence of specific agents and use it against the president. His oversight of cases like this is so remote that it just doesn't make any sense to try to tie him to it.

Dave

i've been accused of running a terrorist camp in my pants, which can't be true, either -- can it?

well, it's certainly not relevant or not accurate in context.

but can it be true?!!??

"The first version of the affidavit released to media organizations by the Justice Department in Washington said potential terrorist targets included..."

Emphasis added so you can't miss the important part, the terrorist scare part came FROM Washington D.C., nothing to do with field agents, etc.

Next you'll try and tell me the White House never exerts control over the messages sent out by the Justice Department?

why yes, you could run a terrorist camp in your pants or you could run one nude too.

thanks for clearing that up, steve. lol