Author Topic: This is justice? (Read 2141 times)

GtoRA2 · « **Reply #75 on:** November 11, 2003, 04:25:08 PM »

MT see my thread, he is being held with no due process.

This guy was held as a witness, and was indeed a witness, why is that wrong?

Mini D · « **Reply #76 on:** November 11, 2003, 04:38:31 PM »

Actually MT... everything they did was legal. The fact that those around simply realize it is the thing that seems to be irrelevant.

When arresting a group of people, things are handled differently than when arresting an individual. The evidence is what was presented to a judge that ruled he could be held as a material witness. The rest is simply sentimental ****.

MiniD

midnight Target · « **Reply #77 on:** November 11, 2003, 05:11:42 PM »

If he was accorded due process then we are in agreement. My point was towards those crowing about the guilty plea.

Like I said, his guilt is irrelevent "If he wasn't given due process."

And no, I'm not trying to do the Ripsnort shuffle here.

Batz · « **Reply #78 on:** November 11, 2003, 05:34:37 PM »

If you had read the links provided by Sandman it’s clear he was given "due process". A federal judge ordered he could be held as a "material witness" and for whatever reason the judge then put a gag order on everything and everyone around it. He had a lawyer; his lawyer was "informed".

We can speculate that the government used the "material witness" as a means to get him to talk or they may have actually thought he new something and had that got out it could have compromised an on going investigation. However, you choose to speculate is up to you.

One thing is clear; those involved knew a lot more then the rest of us.

The reason his guilty plea is of interest is because it flies in the face of all those who portrayed this guy as an innocent victim who suffered at the hands of an unjust government.

Mini D · « **Reply #79 on:** November 11, 2003, 05:34:53 PM »

The only people arguing "due process" were those that had no involvement with the case. His atourney didn't even bring this up.

I find it funny that the web site linked in the initial thread is still up despite being seriously misleading. I find it odd that a seach of this subject on the net doesn't turn up a single "oops... our bad" or anything but more baseless exageration.

It's pretty symbolic of everything being posted in the O'Club right now. Post what we want to believe is true and if it doesn't really pan out... pretend we didn't.

MiniD

Martlet · « **Reply #80 on:** November 11, 2003, 07:07:03 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Mini D

I find it funny that the web site linked in the initial thread is still up despite being seriously misleading. I find it odd that a seach of this subject on the net doesn't turn up a single "oops... our bad" or anything but more baseless exageration.

MiniD

I thought that was funny too, so I went back and looked. For some reason he linked the .oldindex rather than the original. If you go to the webpage by url, you get this: http://www.freemikehawash.org/

FUNKED1 · « **Reply #81 on:** November 11, 2003, 07:10:23 PM »

That makes a lot more sense.

midnight Target · « **Reply #82 on:** November 11, 2003, 07:11:00 PM »

A true terrorism fighter:

(from the guilty plea) A. On July 4, 1999, President Clinton issued Executive Order 13129, which prohibited United States persons from, among other things, making any contribution of services to or for the benefit of the Taliban, and from supplying, directly or indirectly, any services to the Taliban or to the territory of Afghanistan controlled by the Taliban. That prohibition was continued in subsequent years and was in effect at all times relevant to the Superseding Indictment. At all times relevant to the Superseding Indictment, defendant HAWASH was a United States citizen and therefore he was a United States person as defined in 31 C.F.R. ? 545.315.

Tumor · « **Reply #83 on:** November 11, 2003, 08:54:57 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by midnight Target
A true terrorism fighter:

(from the guilty plea) A. On July 4, 1999, President Clinton issued Executive Order 13129, which prohibited United States persons from, among other things, making any contribution of services to or for the benefit of the Taliban, and from supplying, directly or indirectly, any services to the Taliban or to the territory of Afghanistan controlled by the Taliban. That prohibition was continued in subsequent years and was in effect at all times relevant to the Superseding Indictment. At all times relevant to the Superseding Indictment, defendant HAWASH was a United States citizen and therefore he was a United States person as defined in 31 C.F.R. ? 545.315.

Oh sure, never mind the guy who kicked the **** out of them LOL.

SaburoS · « **Reply #84 on:** November 12, 2003, 03:01:21 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by muckmaw
Sandman.....

Uh.....Saburo....

Care to comment?

Hello?

Is this thing on?

Your little Martyr was going to fight for the Taliban and Al-Quaeda and Kill american soldiers...

Hello?

See, now if I was Sandman or Saburo, I would be a big man about this, wipe the egg off my face and say, "You know what, I was wrong."

Guys?

Your just gonna forget this thread ever happened?

It's easier to run and hide than to face your mistake.

C'mon guys, suck it up.....

So you knew automatically that he was guilty. Sorry, but I stand by my statements in this thread. Funny, I don't see any of you so called "conservatives" answering my last post in this thread.
Run and hide indeed.

Mini D · « **Reply #85 on:** November 12, 2003, 07:58:12 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Martlet
I thought that was funny too, so I went back and looked. For some reason he linked the .oldindex rather than the original. If you go to the webpage by url, you get this: http://www.freemikehawash.org/

Ah... that is a bit odd seeing as how he linked the site on April 4th right after it was created.

I do enjoy the condemnation by the site authors for those who would pass judgement based on Mike's beard. When, in fact, it was they who decided not to post the picture because it portrayed him in a bad light.

And Saburo... your scathing comment on those who "knew" he was guilty holds no more weight than your defense of those who "knew" he wasn't receiving due process. There was substantial evidence. A judge made the decision based on that evidence. A guilty plea was issued because of that evidence.

Feel free to look for another case to try and prove whatever point it is you're going after. Simply throw this one into the "doesn't prove my point" pile and note that you still haven't put anything in the "I was wrong" pile.

MiniD

Sandman · « **Reply #86 on:** November 12, 2003, 09:30:00 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Martlet
I thought that was funny too, so I went back and looked. For some reason he linked the .oldindex rather than the original. If you go to the webpage by url, you get this: http://www.freemikehawash.org/

I don't recall what was on the /index.html page when this thread was started in April. A moot point really because the default index has obviously been changed (updated) since then.

Ripsnort · « **Reply #87 on:** November 12, 2003, 09:34:03 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
I do not recall any 911 terrorists that were U.S. citizens. In fact, the only U.S. terrorist that comes to mind was a white guy named McVeigh.

Only? You seem to forget our friendly neighborhood liberal unibomber.

Sandman · « **Reply #88 on:** November 12, 2003, 09:36:49 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Ripsnort
Only? You seem to forget our friendly neighborhood liberal unibomber.

Nice comeback... I'll get back to you for more wit in about seven months.

Ripsnort · « **Reply #89 on:** November 12, 2003, 09:47:07 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
Nice comeback... I'll get back to you for more wit in about seven months.

LOL! Didn't see the date, just sifting thru threads before my 2 hour Wednesday meeting (I hate Wednesdays)