Unpossible. His name is HUSSEIN. Get a brain morans.

But...
It was unclear, however, whether Hussein would still face further obstacles to release.

U.S. military authorities have said a U.N. Security Council mandate allows them to retain custody of a detainee they believe is a security risk even if an Iraqi judicial body has ordered that prisoner freed.


You see, they haven't proven that he's innocent, so we'll just hang on to him, thanks. Guilty until proven innocent, it's the American way!

I don't know anything about this case but just for accuracy, it wasn't decided that he was innocent, just that whatever the charges were they were made null and void by an amnesty agreement that was reached.

Broken9754: whatever the charges allegations were they were made null and void by an amnesty agreement that was reached.

My bad. FTFM.

Nestea Plunge: Michelle Malkin will freak out so hard her eyeballs will pop out faster than she can queef a ping pong ball.

That's hot.

But I felt safer.

So the Iraqi government seems to adhere to due process better than the US government? Ummm... Mission Accomplished?

VictoryCabal: So the Iraqi government seems to adhere to due process better than the US government? Ummm... Mission Accomplished?

does that mean they need to invade us?

All hail King George, who's magnanimous policies have brought freedom and safety to this great land.

We can't trust those liberal courts in Iraq. I say we waterboard him to be sure he isn't holding back that intelligence he has gathered in his terrorist trainign camps.

I covered this guy for War News Radio. Everything about his case was sketchy from the start-- they didn't charge him for two years because they didn't HAVE anything to charge him with. After the first three or four months they were basically just hanging onto him because to let him go would be embarassing.

At least the freepers and lgf'ers are still calling for his head like true patriots.

submitter: Yeah, turns out he was innocent.

!=

TFA: Under Iraq's 2-month-old amnesty law, a grant of amnesty effectively closes a case and does not assume guilt of the accused.

...In February, parliament approved a law providing amnesty to those held for insurgency-related offenses - including detainees such as Hussein who have never been convicted.

That said, I think he should be let out. And then kept under close surveillance.

I say we execute him anyway. It's what Christ would have done.

veedeevadeevoodee: Amnesty ≠ Innocence

2 years without being able to bring a single charge against him ≠ guilt proven beyond a reasonable doubt

Yeah, turns out he was innocent.

Amnesty ≠ Innocence

/ RTFH

veedeevadeevoodee: Yeah, turns out he was innocent.

Amnesty ≠ Innocence

/ RTFH

Oh yeah. Because the Iraqis likely cut him a deal to avoid having him get off scot free, like an everyday plea bargain. I mean, it's not like they could get the military to detain him without a trial until they acquired enough evidence for a conviction. That would be unconstitutional. I'm sure glad I don't live in a world where any of that's possible.

/ Amnesty == Guilt now?
/ Someone notify Guilt International!

Sygerrik: I covered this guy for War News Radio. Everything about his case was sketchy from the start-- they didn't charge him for two years because they didn't HAVE anything to charge him with. After the first three or four months they were basically just hanging onto him because to let him go would be embarassing.

Um, he was working for AP! What more do you need?

Jeez, folks. veedeevadeevoodee was commenting on the headline and he's correct. Chill out.

mediaho: Jeez, folks. veedeevadeevoodee was commenting on the headline and he's correct. Chill out.

i dunno, i'd say he was innocent, and thus he was given amnesty. his innocence, to me, being indicated by the fact that they never charged him with anything.

MasterThief: submitter: Yeah, turns out he was innocent.

!=

TFA: Under Iraq's 2-month-old amnesty law, a grant of amnesty effectively closes a case and does not assume guilt of the accused.

...In February, parliament approved a law providing amnesty to those held for insurgency-related offenses - including detainees such as Hussein who have never been convicted.

That said, I think he should be let out. And then kept under close surveillance.

Why should he be under surveillance?

burndtdan: i dunno, i'd say he was innocent, and thus he was given amnesty. his innocence, to me, being indicated by the fact that they never charged him with anything.

As I understand, the amnesty law itself was done for political reconciliation, not because these guys were seen as unjustly imprisoned. Big difference.

Cagey B: Why should he be under surveillance?

Because I will bet you that he will attempt to make contact with insurgents again, to get exclusive pictures of the carnage they cause. Then surveil the insurgents, and wait for them to show themselves. And then arrest them.

Cagey B: Why should he be under surveillance?

That's pre-9/11 thinking, traitor.

MasterThief: Cagey B: Why should he be under surveillance?

Because I will bet you that he will attempt to make contact with insurgents again, to get exclusive pictures of the carnage they cause. Then surveil the insurgents, and wait for them to show themselves. And then arrest them.

Huh.

What proof, of any sort, is there that he is in league with insurgents? Can the military produce the bomb-making materials he was alleged to have? Can the military name the terrorist he supposedly offered to procure a fake ID for? Are they charging the other two journalists who were stopped at gunpoint to photograph a body? Apparently the answer is "none" and "no" to these questions, since they've held this guy for two years, and have not filed charges or offered any actual proof of their claims.

So I'm wondering why you'd bet me he'd try to make contact with insurgents. Is there any reason, besides the fact that he was detained, to think that he was working with terrorists?

Surveillance? If there was any justice in this case, they'd set him free tomorrow along with a fat check to compensate for two years of baseless detention.

mediaho:

At least the freepers and lgf'ers are still calling for his head like true patriots.

Ugh. I guess someone has to keep an eye on the Abyss. You're a better man than I.

MasterThief: burndtdan: i dunno, i'd say he was innocent, and thus he was given amnesty. his innocence, to me, being indicated by the fact that they never charged him with anything.

As I understand, the amnesty law itself was done for political reconciliation, not because these guys were seen as unjustly imprisoned. Big difference.

the amnesty isn't really my point, my point is the guy was innocent regardless of the amnesty. i guess i'm just a stickler for habeas corpus which says the guy was illegally detained.

/i'm not saying you think otherwise, just stating my feelings on the matter

MasterThief: As I understand, the amnesty law itself was done for political reconciliation, not because these guys were seen as unjustly imprisoned.

Well, if they were justly imprisoned, why were no charges brought? Presumably there's evidence of some crime, sufficient for arrest, that should be then brought into a court so that it can be tried and a conviction either applied or denied. Or isn't that how things are done with the US government these days?

Innocent until proven guilty is so old school.

mediaho: At least the freepers and lgf'ers are still calling for his head like true patriots.

They are assholes.

Honestly, how farking delusional do you have to be to think that suspending laws and rights, and then not correcting the inevitable abuses this leads to, is "patriotic". These retards (the ones whose comments you refer to, that I just finished reading) are the cancer that's killing America.

And Hillary supporters.
And Patriots fans.
And anyone else who disagrees with me.

Hah! To a conservative, NOBODY is innocent. They just haven't been convicted of something yet.

Did submitter bother reading the article? Or is the submitter simply going with the technicality of "innocent until proven guilty" and applying that to say "the person was innocent the whole time, and will continue to be innocent unless found guilty"

George, Tom, Abe, Teddy...Hell, every American that is long dead now...we've let you down. Terribly. We only hope that we improve in the future and learn from our mistakes because we are failures as Americans and have forgotten what the word 'patriot' means. I am ashamed for the people of this country who let that dream die. I am ashamed of myself for sitting idly by and watching it happen.

mediaho: At least the freepers and lgf'ers are still calling for his head like true patriots.

I got that stabbing pain in my brain when I realized that I just read what could only be considered monumentally stupid. I think you actually managed to cause damage by the mere posting of that nonsense.

stiletto_the_wise: Hah! To a conservative, NOBODY is innocent. They just haven't been convicted of something yet.

Unless they, too, are a conservative. Then they are never guilty.

I Said: stiletto_the_wise: Hah! To a conservative, NOBODY is innocent. They just haven't been convicted of something yet.

Unless they, too, are a refer to themselves as a conservative. Then they are never guilty.

FTFM
Most conservatives are far from supporting the ideology. They are just rooting for a team.

I Said:

Honestly, how farking delusional do you have to be to think that suspending laws and rights, and then not correcting the inevitable abuses this leads to, is "patriotic". These retards (the ones whose comments you refer to, that I just finished reading) are the cancer that's killing America.


Yes, How did we ever win the cold war without surrendering all our rights...but now we must because of some cave dwellers in the third world...

helix400: Did submitter bother reading the article? Or is the submitter simply going with the technicality of "innocent until proven guilty" and applying that to say "the person was innocent the whole time, and will continue to be innocent unless found guilty"

He was held for two years. Not much of a technicality there unless you think the military was holding back all this time.

Hes being let loose on an amnesty law. An amnesty law for insurgents. Pretty much, to bring the country together insurgents who aren't charged with murder are being let go. INSURGENTS. This guy was let go under that law because the court deemed that he was an insurgent but committed no murder crime. However the US military might grab him and press charges for being an accomplice. I mean jesus they found his house filled with bomb making materials, and maps of US bases along with photos. Which means he will go to court and the AP can defend him like they've wanted to. I can't wait.

spqr_ca Well, if they were justly imprisoned, why were no charges brought?

Charges were brought against him. The Iraqi court basically said they have bigger fish to fry so they let him off. Probably a reasonable decision on their part, they need to clear out a huge backlog.

GodsTumor: Yes, How did we ever win the cold war without surrendering all our rights...but now we must because of some cave dwellers in the third world...

If Bush's policy was to "grant the rights guaranteed by the constitution to all people as a sign of the strength of our resolve" and Obama wanted to throw people in Gitmo without a trial, Obama would be called a traitor by these assholes. They do not care what the issue or the position is, so long as their "team" is winning. They'd rather a man who calls himself a republican destroy most of what he touches, then a man who calls himself a democrat (no matter how republican or democratic his positions may be) fix things. Once again, people like that are the cancer that is killing America. Party line voting, party before country, jerkoffs

helix400: technicality of "innocent until proven guilty"

That's just a technicality now? How sad.

GodsTumor: Yes, How did we ever win the cold war without surrendering all our rights...but now we must because of some cave dwellers in the third world...

Clearly. Also, Saddam's imaginary stash of weapons was worthy of an invasion while Russia (and every other nuclear state) gets left alone and/or bargained with. The message this sends is that countries need nukes to ensure their sovereignty (ie. Iran).

pnjunction: That's just a technicality now? How sad.

Technicality in terms of the very misleading headline.

Two years?

if he was innocent, he wouldn't need amnesty.

I Said: GodsTumor: Yes, How did we ever win the cold war without surrendering all our rights...but now we must because of some cave dwellers in the third world...

If Bush's policy was to "grant the rights guaranteed by the constitution to all people as a sign of the strength of our resolve" and Obama wanted to throw people in Gitmo without a trial, Obama would be called a traitor by these assholes. They do not care what the issue or the position is, so long as their "team" is winning. They'd rather a man who calls himself a republican destroy most of what he touches, then a man who calls himself a democrat (no matter how republican or democratic his positions may be) fix things. Once again, people like that are the cancer that is killing America. Party line voting, party before country, jerkoffs

Exactly. See jonshep, whose major concern is making the AP look bad.

We as a nation have some deeply farked up people making us all look bad.

Since when are right wing blogs right about ANYTHING?

Remember this one, how John Kerry was intentionally alienated by all the troops? It turns he he sought privacy to have an off-the-record conversation with a journalist.

tomhath: Charges were brought against him. The Iraqi court basically said they have bigger fish to fry so they let him off. Probably a reasonable decision on their part, they need to clear out a huge backlog.

Got a source for that? I'm not finding evidence for your assertion in the public record. The closest I have found is information that he had some form of hearing in December, but no formal charges were actually laid.

So two AP reporters contribute to an article about an AP photographer who was one of their Pulitzer Prize winners, about how the AP president said he should of been released a long time ago. Before trial, even though accusations WERE levied against Bilal. So AP was trying to act as judge and jury? I really hope this gets taken to trial so the military can drag AP through the mud.