Custom Search

Wednesday, October 18, 2006

Rangel's Ridiculous Rantings

After witnessing the ridiculous rantings of Charles Rangel on the O'reilly show last night, I was struck by a few things. Hot Air has the video of the interview

His opposition to the Military Commissions Act-2006: Where he uses the terms combatants or prisoners of war, referring to the terrorist detainees, which in and of itself shows his lack of understanding of our laws.

To be entitled to prisoner of war status, the captured service member must have conducted operations according to the laws and customs of war: be part of a chain of command and wear a uniform and bear arms openly. Thus, franc-tireurs, terrorists and spies may be excluded. In practice, these criteria are not always interpreted strictly. Guerrillas, for example, may not wear a uniform or carry arms openly yet are typically granted POW status if captured. However, guerrillas or any other combatant may not be granted the status if they try to use both the civilian and the military status. Thus, the importance of uniforms — or as in the guerrilla case, a badge — to keep this important rule of warfare.

Prisoner of war status is NOT granted to terrorists according to our laws. As O'reilly pointed out, these prisoners do not fight under any flag, they do not fight for any country.

Then when O'reilly poses the question flat out and bluntly about whether Charles Rangel would rather see 1,000 people dead than dunk a person such as Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in water, Rangel dodges and avoids the question and brings up the NIE.... this is the same NIE that gave us the intelligence that Iraq did indeed have weapons of mass destruction, which has not been proven or found as of yet.

Quick note on Khalid Sheikh Mohammed: Formerly a Pakistani-Kuwaiti member of Osama bin Laden's al-Qaeda organization, according to the 9/11 Commission Report he was "the principal architect of the 9/11 attacks." He is also thought to have had a role in many of the most significant terrorist plots over the last twenty years, including the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, the Operation Bojinka plot, an aborted 2002 attack on Los Angeles' U.S. Bank Tower, the Bali nightclub bombings, the failed bombing of American Airlines Flight 63, and the murder of Daniel Pearl. He was captured in Rawalpindi, Pakistan on March 1, 2003 by the Pakistani ISI, possibly in a joint action with agents of the American Federal Bureau of Investigation, and has been in U.S. custody since that time.

Back to the point of Rangel's Ridiculous Rantings: Rangel commented about "supposed terrorists", and by the information obtained by these "supposed terrorists" we now have indisputable PROOF, that they are indeed terrorists. The information procured from these individuals is the proof.

Example: The capture of Abu Zubaydah and questioning him identified one of KSM's accomplices in the 9/11 attacks -- a terrorist named Ramzi bin al Shibh. The information Zubaydah provided helped lead to the capture of bin al Shibh. And together these two terrorists provided information that helped in the planning and execution of the operation that captured Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.or KSM -- was the mastermind behind the 9/11 attacks, and used the alias "Muktar." This was a vital piece of the puzzle that helped our intelligence community pursue KSM. Abu Zubaydah also provided information that helped stop a terrorist attack being planned for inside the United States -- an attack about which we had no previous information. Zubaydah told us that al Qaeda operatives were planning to launch an attack in the U.S., and provided physical descriptions of the operatives and information on their general location. Based on the information he provided, the operatives were detained -- one while traveling to the United States.

During questioning, KSM told us about another al Qaeda operative he knew was in CIA custody -- a terrorist named Majid Khan. KSM revealed that Khan had been told to deliver $50,000 to individuals working for a suspected terrorist leader named Hambali, the leader of al Qaeda's Southeast Asian affiliate known as "J-I". CIA officers confronted Khan with this information. Khan confirmed that the money had been delivered to an operative named Zubair, and provided both a physical description and contact number for this operative.

Quick note about Majid Khan: the first challenge his detention alleging that he was was tortured, subjected to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, and was coerced into making false and unreliable confessions (Statements so false and coerced they led to the capture of Zubair, therefore proving that the information although possibly coerced WAS accurate and not "false" as he claims.)

Based on that information, Zubair was captured in June of 2003, and he soon provided information that helped lead to the capture of Hambali. After Hambali's arrest, KSM was questioned again. He identified Hambali's brother as the leader of a "J-I" cell, and Hambali's conduit for communications with al Qaeda. Hambali's brother was soon captured in Pakistan, and, in turn, led us to a cell of 17 Southeast Asian "J-I" operatives. When confronted with the news that his terror cell had been broken up, Hambali admitted that the operatives were being groomed at KSM's request for attacks inside the United States -- probably using airplanes.

Finally, KSM also provided vital information on al Qaeda's efforts to obtain biological weapons. During questioning, KSM admitted that he had met three individuals involved in al Qaeda's efforts to produce anthrax, a deadly biological agent -- and he identified one of the individuals as a terrorist named Yazid. KSM apparently believed we already had this information, because Yazid had been captured and taken into foreign custody before KSM's arrest. In fact, we did not know about Yazid's role in al Qaeda's anthrax program. Information from Yazid then helped lead to the capture of his two principal assistants in the anthrax program. Without the information provided by KSM and Yazid, we might not have uncovered this al Qaeda biological weapons program, or stopped this al Qaeda cell from developing anthrax for attacks against the United States.

Rangel's side stepping questions and calling these people "supposed" terrorists he proves once again that the Democratic party is not knowledgable enough, nor competent enough to handle the security of the United Staes of America.

Add that to my rant about the Agenda for the "Common Good" yesterday and I do not think the democrats are fit to discuss, more or less, be in charge of, National Security.

So this article Wapo posted about What the Democrats would do, the question should be asked, What the Democrats would NOT do.... protect us.

Open Trackback Alliance at Right Truth.

Others Posting on these issues: Hot Air, The Doc is in, USS Neverdock, Ace of Spades.

[UPDATE]- 10/19/06 Stop the ACLU has a great article dealing with this very issue. Legal Redux. Residual Forces.