Abu Ghaith was convicted today of material support for terrorism because he spoke "on behalf" of Al Qaeda after 9/11.
NYT article and video--The video must also be watched, where Stanley Cohen says if this was about words, then Congress could be tried as well for incendiary statements!!
Why this case is important
Sulaiman Abu Ghaith, was the most senior Bin Laden confederate to be tried in a civilian court in the United States since Sept. 11, and his swift conviction on all counts would seem to serve as a rejoinder to critics of the Obama administration’s efforts to try suspected terrorists in civilian courts, rather than before a military tribunal.
Brief Facts on the case from LA Times
Just Security cites this case as why GITMO should close and military commisions should end.
Andy Worthington's article on Abu Ghaith's testimony link
Some key points:
continued
continued
continued
So Abu Ghaith testified that he was delivering a message about the right of self defense when attacked and oppressed, and Judge Kaplan said that he will charge the jury to hold Ghaith responsible for all of Al Qaeda's activities since 1998, even though Ghaith was only speaking "for" Al Qaeda for one year.
said, I don’t have any military expertise to tell you what’s going to happen.
I said, Politically, I said, America, if it was proven that you were the one who did this, will not settle until it accomplishes two things: To kill you and topple the state of Taliban.
- See more at: http://www.andyworthington.co.uk/2014/03/23/sulaiman-abu-ghaiths-unexpected-testimony-in-new-york-terrorism-trial/#sthash.iobTu046.dpuf
I said, Politically, I said, America, if it was proven that you were the one who did this, will not settle until it accomplishes two things: To kill you and topple the state of Taliban.
- See more at: http://www.andyworthington.co.uk/2014/03/23/sulaiman-abu-ghaiths-unexpected-testimony-in-new-york-terrorism-trial/#sthash.iobTu046.dpuf
I said, I don’t have any military expertise to tell you what’s going to happen.
I said, Politically, I said, America, if it was proven that you were the one who did this, will not settle until it accomplishes two things: To kill you and topple the state of Taliban.
- See more at: http://www.andyworthington.co.uk/2014/03/23/sulaiman-abu-ghaiths-unexpected-testimony-in-new-york-terrorism-trial/#sthash.iobTu046.dpuf
I said, I don’t have any military expertise to tell you what’s going to happen.
I said, Politically, I said, America, if it was proven that you were the one who did this, will not settle until it accomplishes two things: To kill you and topple the state of Taliban.
- See more at: http://www.andyworthington.co.uk/2014/03/23/sulaiman-abu-ghaiths-unexpected-testimony-in-new-york-terrorism-trial/#sthash.iobTu046.dpuf
I said, I don’t have any military expertise to tell you what’s going to happen.
I said, Politically, I said, America, if it was proven that you were the one who did this, will not settle until it accomplishes two things: To kill you and topple the state of Taliban.
- See more at: http://www.andyworthington.co.uk/2014/03/23/sulaiman-abu-ghaiths-unexpected-testimony-in-new-york-terrorism-trial/#sthash.iobTu046.dpuf
I said, Politically, I said, America, if it was proven that you were the one who did this, will not settle until it accomplishes two things: To kill you and topple the state of Taliban.
- See more at: http://www.andyworthington.co.uk/2014/03/23/sulaiman-abu-ghaiths-unexpected-testimony-in-new-york-terrorism-trial/#sthash.iobTu046.dpuf
I said, I don’t have any military expertise to tell you what’s going to happen.
I said, Politically, I said, America, if it was proven that you were the one who did this, will not settle until it accomplishes two things: To kill you and topple the state of Taliban.
- See more at: http://www.andyworthington.co.uk/2014/03/23/sulaiman-abu-ghaiths-unexpected-testimony-in-new-york-terrorism-trial/#sthash.iobTu046.dpuf
After the verdict, defense lawyers said they would appeal the decision, which could sentence Ghaith to life in prison.I said, Politically, I said, America, if it was proven that you were the one who did this, will not settle until it accomplishes two things: To kill you and topple the state of Taliban.
- See more at: http://www.andyworthington.co.uk/2014/03/23/sulaiman-abu-ghaiths-unexpected-testimony-in-new-york-terrorism-trial/#sthash.iobTu046.dpuf
If Abu Ghaith is guilty because of speech, then so could many other people who Americans consider heroes, or at least are controversial, but not tried on charges of material support for terrorism and conspiracy to kill Americans.
side note I recommend the documentary "Control Room" about Al Jazeera, from 2003, in which an American solider in Iraq talks with reporters for Al Jazeera, and shows the real face of what was considered "Al Qaeda's news network" since they would air bin Laden videos and messages. There was a great discussion about showing the bodies of American soldiers who had been killed, on TV, and how distressing that was to Americans. The reporter points out the hypocrisy, saying American media shows dead Arabs and Muslims all the time, without giving it a second thought---it is only when it is your citizens that you care and feel outrage.
Martin Luther King Jr, Robert Kennedy, Reverend Jeremiah Wright, Ward Churchill, Nelson Mandela, Jane Fonda, and countless other human rights groups, defense lawyers, clergy, professors, politicians and activists have spoken about understanding our enemies, changing our foreign policy, exposing lies the government tells, and preaching for peace. How many could be tried for "material support of America's enemies" or "helping to kill Americans" ???
Is everyone who said "support our troops" guilty in killing or aiding those who killed thousands of innocent civilians killed in Iraq and Afghanistan??
Martin Luther King spoke out against the Vietnam war, and spoke about understanding our enemies. The same can be said about Iraq, Afghanistan, and many countries in the Middle East and around the world. Violence and terrorism is not the answer, but our enemies have real policies that America does in the name of its citizens that are abhorrent if we really paid attention.
Could we try Martin Luther King for "providing support to our enemies and conspiring to kill Americans" ???
Here are some key points---It is an amazing speech
Even when pressed by the demands of inner truth, men do not easily assume the task of opposing their government's policy, especially in time of war.
And so we watch them in brutal solidarity burning the huts of a poor village
(when I preach nonviolence) They ask if our own nation wasn't using massive doses of violence to solve its problems, to bring about the changes it wanted.
I knew that I could never again raise my voice against the violence of the oppressed in the ghettos without having first spoken clearly to the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today -- my own government.
(to save the soul of America we) are led down the path of protest and dissent, working for the health of our land.
(as a preacher of Christ) Can I threaten them with death or must I not share with them my life?
They must see Americans as strange liberators.
The only change came from America, as we increased our troop commitments in support of governments which were singularly corrupt, inept, and without popular support.
they received the regular promises of peace and democracy and land reform. Now they languish under our bombs and consider us, not their fellow Vietnamese, the real enemy.
They watch as we poison their water, as we kill a million acres of their crops. They must weep as the bulldozers roar through their areas preparing to destroy the precious trees. They wander into the hospitals with at least twenty casualties from American firepower for one Vietcong-inflicted injury. So far we may have killed a million of them, mostly children.
What do they think as we test out our latest weapons on them, just as the Germans tested out new medicine and new tortures in the concentration camps of Europe?
Could we blame them for such thoughts? We must speak for them and raise the questions they cannot raise. These, too, are our brothers.
How can they trust us when now we charge them with violence after the murderous reign of Diem and charge them with violence while we pour every new weapon of death into their land? Surely we must understand their feelings, even if we do not condone their actions. Surely we must see that the men we supported pressed them to their violence. Surely we must see that our own computerized plans of destruction simply dwarf their greatest acts. (emphasis mine)
Here is the true meaning and value of compassion and nonviolence, when it helps us to see the enemy's point of view, to hear his questions, to know his assessment of ourselves. For from his view we may indeed see the basic weaknesses of our own condition, and if we are mature, we may learn and grow and profit from the wisdom of the brothers who are called the opposition.
King understood that understanding our enemy is the true key to supporting our troops
I have tried in these last few minutes to give a voice to the voiceless in Vietnam and to understand the arguments of those who are called "enemy," I am as deeply concerned about our own troops there as anything else.
I speak as a citizen of the world, for the world as it stands aghast at the path we have taken. I speak as one who loves America, to the leaders of our own nation: The great initiative in this war is ours; the initiative to stop it must be ours.
As King spoke in 1967 against the war in Vietnam, he foresaw a future of many more battles
if we ignore this sobering reality, we will find ourselves organizing "clergy and laymen concerned" committees for the next generation. They will be concerned about Guatemala -- Guatemala and Peru. They will be concerned about Thailand and Cambodia. They will be concerned about Mozambique and South Africa. We will be marching for these and a dozen other names and attending rallies without end, unless there is a significant and profound change in American life and policy. (emphasis mine)
As the jury found Abu Ghaith guilty, should we find JFK guilty of inciting violence??
the words of the late John F. Kennedy come back to haunt us. Five years ago he said, "Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." Increasingly, by choice or by accident, this is the role our nation has taken
I will end quoting from Martin Luther King's great speech (my favorite speech ever) with King tying together the fight against racism, poverty and militarism
When machines and computers, profit motives and property rights, are considered more important than people, the giant triplets of racism, extreme materialism, and militarism are incapable of being conquered.....A true revolution of values will soon cause us to question the fairness and justice of many of our past and present policies......True compassion is more than flinging a coin to a beggar. It comes to see that an edifice which produces beggars needs restructuring.
If all we say is "we are right and they are wrong" then we are wrong and they are right.
The Western arrogance of feeling that it has everything to teach others and nothing to learn from them is not just.
MLK "aides communists" !!!
Communism will never be defeated by the use of atomic bombs or nuclear weapons.
"These are revolutionary times. All over the globe men are revolting against old systems of exploitation and oppression, and out of the wounds of a frail world, new systems of justice and equality are being born."
MLK supports those revolting against America!!!
We in the West must support these revolutions.
MLK supports communists!!!
It is a sad fact that because of comfort, complacency, a morbid fear of communism, and our proneness to adjust to injustice, the Western nations that initiated so much of the revolutionary spirit of the modern world have now become the arch antirevolutionaries. This has driven many to feel that only Marxism has a revolutionary spirit. Therefore, communism is a judgment against our failure to make democracy real and follow through on the revolutions that we initiated. (emphasis mine)
We cannot hate our enemies into surrender, we must understand their concerns, and truly live our ideals of freedom, democracy and justice
We can no longer afford to worship the god of hate or bow before the altar of retaliation. The oceans of history are made turbulent by the ever-rising tides of hate. And history is cluttered with the wreckage of nations and individuals that pursued this self-defeating path of hate.
We still have a choice today: nonviolent coexistence or violent coannihilation.....If we do not act, we shall surely be dragged down the long, dark, and shameful corridors of time reserved for those who possess power without compassion, might without morality, and strength without sight.
Ward Churchill controversy Wikipedia
Professor Ward Churchill wrote in an essay
On the morning of September 11, 2001, a few more chickens – along with some half-million dead Iraqi children – came home to roost in a very big way at the twin towers of New York's World Trade Center. Well, actually, a few of them seem to have nestled in at the Pentagon as well.
These are some statements of support he got.
Reverand Jeremiah Wright Wikipedia
"No, no, no, not God Bless America. God damn America"
"We bombed Hiroshima, we bombed Nagasaki, and we nuked far more than the thousands in New York and the Pentagon, and we never batted an eye... and now we are indignant, because the stuff we have done overseas is now brought back into our own front yards. America's chickens are coming home to roost."
On January 15, 2014 Rev Wright was back in the news for saying
While Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. is remembered for saying “I have a dream,” Wright suggested Obama’s legacy could be boiled down to “I have a drone.”
Jane Fonda goes to Vietnam and Hanoi
http://www.janefonda.com/the-truth-about-my-trip-to-hanoi/
Little known is the fact that almost 300 Americans—journalists, diplomats, peace activists, professors, religious leaders and Vietnam Veterans themselves—had been traveling to North Vietnam over a number of years in an effort to try and find ways to end the war (By the way, those trips generated little if any media attention.) I brought with me to Hanoi a thick package of letters from families of POWs. Since 1969, mail for the POWs had been brought in and out of North Vietnam every month by American visitors. The Committee of Liaison With Families coordinated this effort. I took the letters to the POWs and brought a packet of letters from them back to their families.
The Photo of Me on the Gun Site.
There is one thing that happened while in North Vietnam that I will regret to my dying day— I allowed myself to be photographed on a Vietnamese anti-aircraft gun.
continued
So Why I Did I Go?
On May 8th, 1972, President Nixon had ordered underwater, explosive mines to be placed in Haiphong Harbor, something that had been rejected by previous administrations. Later that same month, reports began to come in from European scientists and diplomats that the dikes of the Red River Delta in North Vietnam were being targeted by U.S. planes. The Swedish ambassador to Vietnam reported to an American delegation in Hanoi that he had at first believed the bombing was accidental, but now, having seen the dikes with his own eyes, he was convinced it was deliberate.When Nelson Mandela died in December, many around the world praised him as an "icon of peace" who fought against apartheid----but what was ignored by most, not unusual in the Mainstream media or when someone dies, is the truth of the legacy of Mandela and why he was in jail for 27 years---bombings and acts of sabotage against an oppressive government.
I might have missed the significance of these reports had Tom Hayden, whom I was dating, not shown me what the recently released Pentagon Papers had to say on the subject: in 1966, Assistant Secretary of Defense John McNaughton, searching for some new means to bring Hanoi to its knees, had proposed destroying North Vietnam’s system of dams and dikes, which, he said, “If handled right- might…offer promise…such destruction does not kill or drown people. By shallow-flooding the rice, it leads after a time to widespread starvation (more than a million?) unless food is provided—which we could offer to do at the conference table.”[1] President Johnson, to his credit, had not acted upon this option.
Now, six years later, Richard Nixon appeared to have given orders to target the dikes—whether to actually destroy them[2] or to demonstrate the threat of destruction, no one knew.
My blog post on Mandela shows how he was portrayed as "revered worldwide for leading the anti-apartheid movement" while his violent tactics were ignored by most, and as Obama praised his "hero" while sentencing the PayPal 14 for nonviolent dissent, and has waged a war on whistleblowers who leak documents (nonviolent) and journalists and activists who nonviolently protest US government policies at home and abroad.
