Posted on 06/30/2004 6:04:31 AM PDT by byteback
WASHINGTON - Republican and Democratic lawmakers alike are demanding to know why the Bush administration chose to release to Syria a terror suspect when several prosecutors and FBI (news - web sites) agents had collected evidence for a possible criminal case.
The circumstances surrounding Nabil al-Marabh's release, detailed in a recent Associated Press story, are "of deep concern and appear to be a departure from an aggressive, proactive approach to the war on terrorism," Senate Finance Committee Chairman Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, wrote Tuesday in a letter to Attorney General John Ashcroft (news - web sites).
"Al-Marabh was at one time No. 27 on the Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI) list of Most Wanted Terrorists," wrote Grassley, who leads the committee that controls federal spending and also is a member of the Judiciary Committee (news - web sites) that oversees the Justice Department (news - web sites). "He appears to have links to a number of terrorists and suspected terrorists in several U.S. cities."
The Iowa Republican repeatedly cited the AP story and demanded that Ashcroft answer 19 questions about al-Marabh's case, including why the Justice Department didn't prosecute the man they had in custody for nearly two years either in a military tribunal or through a secret court proceeding that could protect intelligence information.
Grassley also asked Justice to detail what has happened to other terror suspects that appeared on the same post-Sept. 11 terrorism list as al-Marabh.
Aides to Senate Judiciary Committee chairman Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, have also made some preliminary inquiries into the case.
One of Ashcroft's top deputies, Chris Wray, recently told Congress that he was concerned some terror suspects rounded up after Sept. 11, 2001, were now being deported because prosecutors were having a hard time making terrorism cases or couldn't expose sensitive intelligence information during court proceedings.
(Excerpt) Read more at story.news.yahoo.com ...
Either way...they aren;t going to say.
Is it me or is Grassley getting to be a real a$$hole lately?
Here's my tribute to the Duke: TributeToRonaldReagan.com
If Ashcroft releases him, they ask why.
If Ashcroft doesn't release others, they ask why not?
Why?
"Senate Finance Committee Chairman Charles Grassley, R-Iowa" ...
.... has no "need to know" of intelligence / counterintelligence operations.
he is just another "whore to the media" looking for publicity for elections.
We need to get rid of ALL the current politicians in office - and every election, get new ones so nobody can develop their fiefdoms again!
I always hope they plant a GPS bug in their behind, and track where they go.
But enough about Bill Clinton ...
I'd like to know why our Supreme Court is trying to give a lot of terrorists every chance at getting off on a legal technicality, so they can ALL go free.
Terrorists are a very valuable resource...the make 'sea changes' much easier...heck you can even get the sheep to demand them....
You want security...you gotta give up liberty...
Either Ashcroft turns him loose - or the Supreme Court will.
Legal precedent seems to be turning to FAVOR the Islamofascists these days. Like this is purely a law enforcement problem, and no crime exists until there is blood on the ground.
Yes, I know that the Democrats and ACLU don't want to allow the country to protect itself, but that doesn't mean that the Bush administration is making all the right moves.
No politician, lawyer, or judge, whatever party or belief should be able to get in the way of this country's need to defend itself.
Browsing through your tribute, I saw a picture of a Marine saluting the President and it brought tears to my eyes. It is exactly how I felt that whole Friday evening (and, actually, that week).
I would post the picture, but this thread doesn't deserve such a poignant picture. It would be out of place.
So, I have added it to your original thread (posted here).
Sorry for the cross thread posting, everyone.
Make the enemy think he's been turned, and let them mete out justice.
It might just as easily be said that in making such a broad based judgement against your fellow posters (at least the first seven of us) that you yourself lack in moral fiber...but I won't say that because I certainbly don't know enough about you to make such a judgement.
And that may be just too bad, we're at war.
Thank you. I will respond there.
Instead of setting a quick military tribunal to determine who is an "enemy combatant," Ashcroft waited until the SCOTUS said that all the Gitmo detainees should have access to federal courts.
As Justice Kennedy wrote on his opinion, the fact that those Gitmo guys have not had access to any legal procedure, military or civilian, was a determining factor in moving the SCOTUS to rule against the Bush administration.
Back in 2002, when those guys arrived at Gitmo, they were so soupped up on Jihad BS that they would have confessed easily to being "enemy combatants." They would have bragged about it.
Now I doubt that any of those preliminary statements would be allowed in a civilian federal case. Furthermore, once they get legal counsel, they will shut up and deny their hostile activities against the US.
Ashcroft lost valuable time and opportunity to label the Gitmo guys "enemy combatant" through a military procedure. IMHO, Ashcroft does not have the vision to get ahead of the curve and outsmart the SCOTUS and Democratic Congressmen.
Well said.
"We need to get rid of ALL the current politicians in office - and every election, get new ones so nobody can develop their fiefdoms again! "
That's right. I've often considered that we'd probably be better off with a draft. Not for our military, but for candidates for public office. Eligible draftees (registered voters, having been selected at random) would fill the slots on the ballot for each party, with the winner having to serve for two years then ... "move on".
Same with the local police, too.
From what I've seen, we'd be better off drafting local citizens to serve in the capacity of peace officer rather than employing the legions of people who would WANT to be cops!
I've always wondered why ANYONE in his or her right mind would want such a job in the first place. With the low pay, terrible hours, one of the highest divorce rates around and not to forget, the danger of being killed, it's a wonder we have any sane applicants at all.
It must be the authority trip, same with almost all of our "professional" politicians I suspect.
My point here is that we may have reached a time where we as a nation would be better served, better represented, as a government of the people, by the people, for the people, if we had a lottery system to fill the ballot positions in elections and for employment in public service positions. Sure, we'd get some crooks that would try and abuse the office or position, but fewer than we have at present, to be sure.
Maybe then people would realize that they have a duty to be an informed voter or you never know what you might get. Rather than just following a party line and trusting in party officials to decide who you get, the choices would be back in our hands. The more parties, the more choices.
No more two party monopoly required. Long live the Republic!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.