Muslims

[Gunny]

I cant believe that these people now seem to be asserting AQ had nothing to do with 911?

Who said THAT?

Come on, boy. I'm about sick of your crap. You're either dumber'n a stick, or a bold-faced liar. Back up your mouth.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Wait wait, maybe he is just misunderstood....

Here is what we are hearing from you...

Bush and Company linked Saddam Hussein to 9/11 before the war and after, as justification for invasion.

Is that what your saying?

 

[Gunny]

Wait wait, maybe he is just misunderstood....

Here is what we are hearing from you...

Bush and Company linked Saddam Hussein to 9/11 before the war and after, as justification for invasion.

Is that what your saying?

What I'm hearing is that because the Bush administration asserted that Saddam had ties to AQ that it equals the Bush administration saying Saddam was responsible for 9/11, and that is why 70% of the people believed it.

He's been back-peddaling from the start, unable to back up his Bush-bashing with anything substantive.

 

[Truthmatters]

linking Sadam to AQ is linking him to 911.

You people can pretend its not but you know it is.

What a world we live in when people refuse verified facts and quotes to deny the obvious.

I fear for my country with this kind of dishonesty in the political debate.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I must now agree you are either STUPID as a rock or a bald face liar. Your pick.

 

[Truthmatters]

Yes the Dems were and are trying to dictate foriegn policy , Its what their constituients sent them to congress to do.

This last election and the current countries thought is that this war was force feed to us on the illusion that Iraq and 911 was tied together.

Over 70 % of america thought they were and to this day a substancial % of Rs still think that.

All the studies and reports have said there were none.

It is perfectly understandable for a country to stop a rouge president who has Lied to them and spilled American blood for the lie.

The majority of Americans aslo now understand that this is a war which is unwinable with troops.

BTW I dont hate you either but I have to admit I hate liars and to me saying someone is Lying about their motivations on such Important issues is tantamount to saying you hate them.

Sorry I jumped to that conclusion with you.

Here is what I said

 

[Gunny]

linking Sadam to AQ is linking him to 911.

You people can pretend its not but you know it is.

What a world we live in when people refuse verified facts and quotes to deny the obvious.

I fear for my country with this kind of dishonesty in the political debate.

Utter nonsense. Your argument is completely devoid of logic.

 

[Bern80]

linking Sadam to AQ is linking him to 911.

You people can pretend its not but you know it is.

What a world we live in when people refuse verified facts and quotes to deny the obvious.

I fear for my country with this kind of dishonesty in the political debate.

You interpretation of what somehting 'obviously' means is what constitutes fact in your world?

 

[Truthmatters]

I dont see how you can stretch what I said to claim that I was lying.

Telling the American people that Saddam was working closely with AQ is linking him to aiding adn abeting in 911.

That is indeed how the law would see it.

If you aid and abet a murderer then you will finds the law considers you a criminal.

Now do you think the people who desided this law were wrong or right?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

If I say the Sky is blue, does that mean you can just assume I meant the clouds are blue also? I mean they ARE in the sky and I DID say the sky was Blue.

 

[Truthmatters]

This is very sad people.

The law would agree with me , this is American law long since established.

You help a criminal boefore or after a crime then you are complicit.

You people are throwing your own laws in the trash to try and proove me wrong?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

This is very sad people.

The law would agree with me , this is American law long since established.

You help a criminal boefore or after a crime then you are complicit.

You people are throwing your own laws in the trash to try and proove me wrong?

Take it to court, you will be laughed out of the building. Claiming what you have claimed is not only stupid it is ridiculous.

 

[Truthmatters]

Is there really not one amoung you who will call a fact a fact?

Will you persist in this partisan charade?

Do you really value party over country?

I weep for my country.

 

[Truthmatters]

http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title9/crm02481.htm

 

[Truthmatters]

2481 Aiding and abetting an attempted crime

The rule of law discussed in the previous section (attempted aiding and abetting) is distinct from aiding and abetting an attempted crime. In the latter case, there would be a guilty principal and an offense, thus posing no problem under the traditional aiding and abetting framework. United States v. Washington, 106 F.3d 983, 1004 (D.C. Cir.), petition for cert. filed, (July 29, 1997) (No. 97-5423). However, whether proceeding under an attempt to aid and abet theory, or aiding and abetting an attempt, if the principal had actually attempted to commit a crime but had failed, the aider and abettor could be charged with the same offense as the principal, namely, attempt to commit the crime. Id. at 1084-85. In other words, a defendant who has aided and abetted an attempt to possess a controlled substance with intent to distribute may be sufficiently involved in the criminal venture to be guilty of the attempt on a "straight attempt theory." See Unit ed States v. Valencia, 907 F.2d 671, 685 n.18 (7th Cir. 1990).

Aiding and abetting an attempted drug offense may be invoked when local enforcement officers predisposed to sell "protection" to drug traffickers make the mistake of offering such "protection" to undercover officers posing as traffickers. See United States v. Washington, 106 F.3d 983, 1004 (D.C.Cir. 1997); United States v. Cartlidge, 808 F.2d 1064 (5th Cir. 1987).In Washington, the court described the charge as follows: "attempted possession [with intent to distribute] on an aiding and abetting theory." 106 F.3d at 1003. Two core features of the offense of attempting to aid and abet were identified. The prosecution must establish that:
1. The defendant had a criminal intent consistent with the crime of aiding and abetting a drug offense (such as intent to aid and abet the possession of cocaine with intent to distribute); as is ordinarily the case, intent would be inferred from defendant's words and actions; and

2. The defendant moved beyond mere preparation and, in fact, completed a substantial step toward committing the crime (such as attending a meeting, agreeing to protect drug dealers, accepting cash for doing so, and taking actions to carry out the plan); and


Factual impossibility was not a defense. In other words, where the defendant has been charged with attempting to aid and abet Mr. X possess cocaine with intent to distribute, it is no defense that Mr, X was, in fact, an undercover agent who never intended to possess any cocaine). Washington, 106 F.3d at 1005-1006.

As stated in United States v. Matlock, 109 F.3d 1313, 1318-1319 (8th Cir. 1997), to prove the offense of aiding and abetting an attempt to commit a drug offense (such as possession of cocaine with intent to distribute), the prosecution must establish the elements of aiding and abetting, including that the conduct of at least one accomplice -- the principal -- satisfied the elements of attempt. See generally United States v. Valencia, 907 F.2d 671, 676-86 (7th Cir. 1990) (in a prosecution following a reverse sting operation, upholding conviction of defendant Martinez for aiding and abetting attempted possession of cocaine with intent to distribute where this defendant's primary role was to construct a sophisticated storage compartment in which an accomplice -- the principal -- intended to store cocaine).

In other words, the prosecution must establish that the defendant:
1. Associated himself with the unlawful venture [to attempt to possess cocaine with intent to distribute];

2. Participated in [the unlawful venture] as something he wished to bring about; and

3. Sought by his actions to make [the unlawful venture] succeed.

United States v. Matlock, 109 F.3d 1313, 1318-1319 (8th Cir. 1997).


The Court should provide the jury the standard instructions on:

Aiding and abetting; and

Attempt (including the "substantial step" element); and

The offense which is the object of the offense (such as possession of cocaine with intent to distribute).
See generally United States v. Valencia, 907 F.2d 671, 679-86 (7th Cir. 1990). However, while the prosecution must both: (1) satisfy the elements of aiding and abetting as to the defendant; and (2) prove that the conduct of at least one accomplice -- the principal -- satisfied all the elements of attempt, the prosecution need not establish that the defendant personally engaged in conduct satisfying all the elements of attempt or the elements of the object of the attempt (such as possession with intent to distribute). This makes sense, since the theory of prosecution is that the defendant aided and abetted the attempt -- as opposed to personally making the attempt in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 (or 21 U.S.C. § 963). But see United States v. Valencia, 907 F.2d 671, 683-85 (7th Cir. 1990) (in a case involving a charge of aiding and abetting an attempt, the Seventh Circuit, in assessing whether the trial court committed plain error by failing to in struct the jury on the "substantial step" element of the crime of attempt, assessed whether the defendant's conduct satisfied this element of attempt).

Finally, where aiding and abetting an attempt is charged, it may be appropriate to propose a "conscious avoidance" or "ostrich" instruction. See United States v. Valencia, 907 F.2d 671, 679-80 (7th Cir. 1990).

 

[Truthmatters]

Our current admin make the American people believe Saddam was aidfing and abetting AQ.

AQ is widely believed to have commited 911.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

You can not be serious.

What next? If someone you don't like DOESN'T say something that means they support what ever your personal beef is, because they didn't openly opposse it?

You have made a claim. Your claim is that Bush and Company SAID or implied that Saddam Hussein was directly involved in 9/11. You can't provide a single incident of them saying that. In fact if we are to take your quotes at the face value you want, then EVERY member of ( including Clinton) the Clinton Whitehouse also have said Saddam Hussein was involved in 9/11.

Take the following.....

Cheney, responding to moderator Gwen Ifill’s first question, said that “concern” about Iraq before the war had “specifically focused” on the fact that Saddam’s regime had been listed for years by the U.S. government as a “state sponsor of terror,” that Palestinian terrorist Abu Nidal operated out of Baghdad, that Saddam paid $25,000 to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers and that he had an “established relationship” with Al Qaeda.

Clinton believed this also. As did his Appointees, as did just about every Democratic Member of Congress. So they are, by your claim all saying Saddam Hussein was involved in 9/11.....

Take this....

One of the greatest dangers we face is that weapons of mass destruction might be passed to terrorists who would not hesitate to use those weapons. Saddam Hussein has longstanding, direct and continuing ties to terrorist networks. Senior members of Iraqi intelligence and al Qaeda have met at least eight times since the early 1990s. Iraq has sent bomb-making and document forgery experts to work with al Qaeda. Iraq has also provided al Qaeda with chemical and biological weapons training. And an al Qaeda operative was sent to Iraq several times in the late 1990s for help in acquiring poisons and gases.

This was supported and believed and acted on by Clinton and his White House. The Intelligence was gathered UNDER his Presidency. It was POLICY to replace Saddam as soon as possible under any means that we could. Clinton just never had the potential public support to go after him. On top of that European Intelligence agencies provided the information, I guess that means they all claimed Saddam was responsible for 9/11 also.

 

[Annie]

Is there really not one amoung you who will call a fact a fact?

Will you persist in this partisan charade?

Do you really value party over country?

I weep for my country.

OMG! In this thread you have proven to not only lack debating skills, but the ability to confine yourself to the point YOU brought up. Then the 'aiding and abetting' nonsense brings closure to whether or not you have a clue to the topic; as well as a basic understanding of the legal system.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

2481 Aiding and abetting an attempted crime

The rule of law discussed in the previous section (attempted aiding and abetting) is distinct from aiding and abetting an attempted crime. In the latter case, there would be a guilty principal and an offense, thus posing no problem under the traditional aiding and abetting framework. United States v. Washington, 106 F.3d 983, 1004 (D.C. Cir.), petition for cert. filed, (July 29, 1997) (No. 97-5423). However, whether proceeding under an attempt to aid and abet theory, or aiding and abetting an attempt, if the principal had actually attempted to commit a crime but had failed, the aider and abettor could be charged with the same offense as the principal, namely, attempt to commit the crime. Id. at 1084-85. In other words, a defendant who has aided and abetted an attempt to possess a controlled substance with intent to distribute may be sufficiently involved in the criminal venture to be guilty of the attempt on a "straight attempt theory." See Unit ed States v. Valencia, 907 F.2d 671, 685 n.18 (7th Cir. 1990).

Aiding and abetting an attempted drug offense may be invoked when local enforcement officers predisposed to sell "protection" to drug traffickers make the mistake of offering such "protection" to undercover officers posing as traffickers. See United States v. Washington, 106 F.3d 983, 1004 (D.C.Cir. 1997); United States v. Cartlidge, 808 F.2d 1064 (5th Cir. 1987).In Washington, the court described the charge as follows: "attempted possession [with intent to distribute] on an aiding and abetting theory." 106 F.3d at 1003. Two core features of the offense of attempting to aid and abet were identified. The prosecution must establish that:
1. The defendant had a criminal intent consistent with the crime of aiding and abetting a drug offense (such as intent to aid and abet the possession of cocaine with intent to distribute); as is ordinarily the case, intent would be inferred from defendant's words and actions; and

2. The defendant moved beyond mere preparation and, in fact, completed a substantial step toward committing the crime (such as attending a meeting, agreeing to protect drug dealers, accepting cash for doing so, and taking actions to carry out the plan); and


Factual impossibility was not a defense. In other words, where the defendant has been charged with attempting to aid and abet Mr. X possess cocaine with intent to distribute, it is no defense that Mr, X was, in fact, an undercover agent who never intended to possess any cocaine). Washington, 106 F.3d at 1005-1006.

As stated in United States v. Matlock, 109 F.3d 1313, 1318-1319 (8th Cir. 1997), to prove the offense of aiding and abetting an attempt to commit a drug offense (such as possession of cocaine with intent to distribute), the prosecution must establish the elements of aiding and abetting, including that the conduct of at least one accomplice -- the principal -- satisfied the elements of attempt. See generally United States v. Valencia, 907 F.2d 671, 676-86 (7th Cir. 1990) (in a prosecution following a reverse sting operation, upholding conviction of defendant Martinez for aiding and abetting attempted possession of cocaine with intent to distribute where this defendant's primary role was to construct a sophisticated storage compartment in which an accomplice -- the principal -- intended to store cocaine).

In other words, the prosecution must establish that the defendant:
1. Associated himself with the unlawful venture [to attempt to possess cocaine with intent to distribute];

2. Participated in [the unlawful venture] as something he wished to bring about; and

3. Sought by his actions to make [the unlawful venture] succeed.

United States v. Matlock, 109 F.3d 1313, 1318-1319 (8th Cir. 1997).


The Court should provide the jury the standard instructions on:

Aiding and abetting; and

Attempt (including the "substantial step" element); and

The offense which is the object of the offense (such as possession of cocaine with intent to distribute).
See generally United States v. Valencia, 907 F.2d 671, 679-86 (7th Cir. 1990). However, while the prosecution must both: (1) satisfy the elements of aiding and abetting as to the defendant; and (2) prove that the conduct of at least one accomplice -- the principal -- satisfied all the elements of attempt, the prosecution need not establish that the defendant personally engaged in conduct satisfying all the elements of attempt or the elements of the object of the attempt (such as possession with intent to distribute). This makes sense, since the theory of prosecution is that the defendant aided and abetted the attempt -- as opposed to personally making the attempt in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 (or 21 U.S.C. § 963). But see United States v. Valencia, 907 F.2d 671, 683-85 (7th Cir. 1990) (in a case involving a charge of aiding and abetting an attempt, the Seventh Circuit, in assessing whether the trial court committed plain error by failing to in struct the jury on the "substantial step" element of the crime of attempt, assessed whether the defendant's conduct satisfied this element of attempt).

Finally, where aiding and abetting an attempt is charged, it may be appropriate to propose a "conscious avoidance" or "ostrich" instruction. See United States v. Valencia, 907 F.2d 671, 679-80 (7th Cir. 1990).

Several GLARING problems... FIRST would be NO one claimed Saddam Hussein aided AQ in the 9/11 planning or execution, in fact they made clear there was NO evidence to support that claim.

SECOND one can't use US law in this manner and apply it to a soveriegn nation.

Using your claim if I drive a criminal from my house to a bus terminal and he catches a bus out of town. Then he commits a crime that I may or may not know about and I pick him up at the bus terminal and drive him home... I am an accomplise to the crime he committed out of town?

 

[Truthmatters]

this has become a game to you people hasnt it?

This is our country ,these things matter.

If someone killed your mother and the police found the person who did it in Bobs house and they found evidence that Bob knew he was going to kill your mother and that he helped him find a weapon and then helped him hide the weapon after the crime you would think Bob should be punished right?

Bush and team made a case on Saddam just like that in their plan to take us to war.

I gave you quotes , I gave you polls which backed up everything I said.

You people have offered nothing but "Nu uh".