May 21, 2008
No, Former Army Chaplain James Yee Was Not Exonerated

Even though the Associated Press says so.

The Associated Press is up to their usual tricks with this one.  According to our post back on March 20, 2004, Yee was certainly not exonerated or cleared; the charges were dropped, according to Maj. Gen. Geoffrey D. Miller, commander of Joint Task Force Guantanamo, because there were "national security concerns that would arise from the release of the evidence" if the case proceeded.

But the AP is correct when it says that Yee has just been made an Obama delegate from Washington state's 9th district.

That AP story was published in the Seattle Times, but it is not hard to find similar stories in the Seattle PI.

Incidentally, it is not unusual for spy cases to be dropped because the government does not want to reveal some of its evidence.  That happened, for instance, with Armand Hammer, who was known to be working for the Soviets for much of his career — but was never charged with being an enemy agent.  (For a description of this disgusting man and his many crimes, read Edward Jay Epstein's Dossier.)   And spy cases have been dropped from time to time in Britain, for the same reason.

Cross posted at Jim Miller on Politics.

Posted by Jim Miller at May 21, 2008 12:42 PM | Email This
Comments
1. I'm having hard enough time sleeping at night worrying that the empty suit will be elected president, and you bring up the Yee case. Now, I am not going to bed for six months so I have no nightmares or I am going to have to medicate myself.

Posted by: swatter on May 21, 2008 01:33 PM
2. Unless he's a convicted felon David Yee has every right to be a delegate. He seems to think the trial was a conspiracy against him for being a Muslim.

Posted by: Cato on May 21, 2008 01:40 PM
3. I'm having hard enough time sleeping at night worrying that the empty suit will be elected president

The country has moved along regardless of whose in charge. I'm not loosing sleep over either candidate, though McCain admitting to not knowing jack about the biggest issue affecting the voters makes me think he's not really a good fit for the job.

Posted by: Cato on May 21, 2008 01:44 PM
4. "The country has moved along regardless of whose in charge. I'm not loosing sleep over either candidate, though McCain admitting to not knowing jack about the biggest issue affecting the voters makes me think he's not really a good fit for the job."


As opposed to Mr "57" states Obama who wants to appease Iran over nuclear weapons when he can't even find Hanford on a map.

Posted by: pbj on May 21, 2008 02:45 PM
5. Nor does he know where Arkansas is relative to Kentucky and Illinois.

Posted by: Gary on May 21, 2008 02:49 PM
6. The discussion here will be more useful if it concentrates on these two questions:

1. Should the AP and our local newspapers say that James Yee has been exonerated when he has not been?

2. Is it appropriate for a party to choose as a delegate a man who is still under suspicion of committing crimes against the United States?

(I can understand why "Cato" has tried to deflect the discussion away from those two points, but I don't udnerstand why others have gone along.)

Posted by: Jim MIller on May 21, 2008 03:33 PM
7. And man, talk about situational awareness... Barry Hussein's complete ignorance about Hanford; which, of course, Cato issues yet another pass for; shows how firmly his fingers are on the pulse as well.

But the institutional leftist mindset is to get past the various, obvious and glaring weaknesses of the empty suit, and focus on the made up lies and false allegations against those opposing.

Introspection seems to be a trait wholly absent in the rank and file leftist.

Posted by: Hinton on May 21, 2008 03:37 PM
8. Since when has the AP let facts get in the way of their reporting? Now, if this was a conservative delegate you could bet your next paycheck that the AP bozos would be insisting this person was not suitable to be a delegate since he/she/it was not exonerated. This are the same poor reporting skills that were evident in the PI's recent article about the FBI not get the funding they needed because of the evil Bush administration. No mention in that article that the FBI budget has doubled under Bush, but, hey, that would require actual effort on the part of the journalist to do some fact checking. Yellow journalism is so much easier to do.

Posted by: Burdabee on May 21, 2008 03:47 PM
9. Don't you know? Democrats celebrate their traitors. Heck, four years ago they put one of them up for President!

Posted by: pbj on May 21, 2008 04:09 PM
10. Don't you know? Democrats celebrate their traitors.

This coming from you, the one who wants to ship US jobs overseas and end military security around nuclear facilities. Keep on putting your foot in your mouth PBJ, you're nothing but tin star patriot. =)

Posted by: Cato on May 21, 2008 04:32 PM
11. But the institutional leftist mindset is to get past the various, obvious and glaring weaknesses of the empty suit, and focus on the made up lies and false allegations against those opposing.

Haha, you denying McCain said he didn't know jack Squat about economics to the Boston Globe? Or that his "Gas Tax Holiday" was the biggest political joke since Ron Paul actually winning a delegate? I'm still waiting for legislation on that, it was supposed to start this weekend.

John McCain...leader, or just another angry old white guy? I used to like McCain back in 2000, too bad he's gone off the deep end.

Posted by: Cato on May 21, 2008 04:50 PM
12. Cato @11

You didn't vote for Bush in 2000, yes? Yes. He knows economics, yes? Yes. You won't vote for McCain, because he doesn't know economics, yes? Yes. You are so confused, so conflicted that it must be painful to be what you are, yes? Yes.

I have a question for you. Gas station A and B are having a sale today. Station A is paying the federal, state and local taxes on gas. Station B is paying for the obscene profits that Big Oil makes. Whose gase will be cheaer to buy?

I have no idea what the answer is, but since you are Liberal and know everything (including what you have no idea about), I thought I would ask you, kimosabe.

Posted by: barrackslawyer on May 21, 2008 06:06 PM
13. @ 11~ Now people can see why we call him the "obfus-CATO-r".

Of course the party of Traitors and cowards made him a delegate. Somehow, my rage is tempered by the realization that a segment of people in this part of the country (pacific NW) no more represents the American value system and way of life, than do most people in St.Petersburg,Russia.

Posted by: Rick D. on May 21, 2008 06:08 PM
14. "national security concerns"

Now there is a term we have heard plenty the last 7 or so years. I wonder if the secret energy meetings in Cheney's office qualified?

The albatross in chief has locked down more documents and papers than the last three presidents put together. Including who comes and goes at the White House. Yea, count me in on a strong supporter of national security concerns. Lobbyists and money launderers count on it.

Posted by: HappyHeathen on May 21, 2008 06:12 PM
15. The fact of the matter is that James Yee was a graduate of the West Point Military Academy and an American Army officer who was arrested in public view; the government held Yee in solitary confinement incommunicado for over 2 months without access to a lawyer, his family, or the courts. He was never charged with a crime, there was no evidence he ever did commit a crime, and the government eventually let him go and the Army discharged him. The government violated military law, federal law and the U.S. Constitution in the process. Some might think that is not acceptable.

Posted by: Michael Bond on May 21, 2008 10:17 PM
16. I have to side with the AP here. If an individual is held on suspicion of misconduct and no charges are ever brought or all charges are dropped, then that individual is absolutely innocent before the law. Prosecutors can say whatever they want, and they have to save face too. But they had a choice: prove up the charges or let the guy go. They let him go. He is innocent.

Posted by: AD on May 21, 2008 11:20 PM
17. But let me just qualify that by saying the guy's obviously a total skeeze. He's innocent in a legal sense, but supporting Obama is a crime against nature and nature's God, which is far worse. :D

Posted by: AD on May 21, 2008 11:22 PM
18. I hate to say it, but I think the AP did right in this story. A man is innocent until proven guilty and that is what our legal system states. It is just like most people believe that OJ is guilty of murder (I am one of them), but he was found not guilty by a jury of his peers. Our legal system may be flawed, but it is better than most in the world.

Posted by: TrueSoldier on May 22, 2008 03:21 AM
19. "On October 19, 2007, Syrian television broadcast its interview with Yee, in Arabic, where he repeated detainees' claims of Koran abuse on the part of the U.S. military."

This piece of human excrement, Yee, admits he never actually saw these acts committed, he just accepted the detainees word that it happened. Then, being the coward he is, appears on Syrian TV to repeat the claims and thus endangering the lives of U.S. Servicemen and civilians alike who travel abroad.

Is there a reason I should be shocked that he's an Fauxbama delegate? Aferall, he fits in nicely with the other American haters: Michelle O., Jerry Wright, William Ayers and Bernadette Dohrn that exist amongst Team Obama.

Yee was nothing short of a "Useful idiot" to the detainees and he continues that role as an Obama delegate.

Posted by: Rick D. on May 22, 2008 05:13 AM
20. "I wonder if the secret energy meetings in Cheney's office qualified?"

No, but thank you SO much for asking.

The BDS-infected are making more bizarre and unsubstantiated allegations against President Bush than the last presidents put together.

Do the unions and moveon.org scum REALLY depend on it, or is it just a matter of fringe left special interest groups getting a pass?

Posted by: Hinton on May 22, 2008 07:26 AM
21. Those agreeing with the AP here have FORCED me to re-evaluate my position on OJ, who I now MUST consider to be "absolutely innocent."

I am ashamed this scumbag ever wore the uniform.

Posted by: Hinton on May 22, 2008 07:29 AM
22. On the same vein, are there any delegates to any of the conventions members or leaders of CAIR?

Posted by: swatter on May 22, 2008 08:26 AM
23. You won't vote for McCain, because he doesn't know economics, yes?

He claims he doesn't know a thing about it, yet he's got a nifty book to read. President is in charge of the US economy, which relies on economic theory of supply and demand. Given his stance on the Federal Gas tax it's clear the book is not helping much.

Station A is paying the federal, state and local taxes on gas. Station B is paying for the obscene profits that Big Oil makes.

Why would Station B be paying for the oil profits? Most Gas Stations are franchises, not owned by the oil companies themselves. Who would have thought having both a President and VP who were former oil men would lead to rewriting the energy policy so it would lead to increased profits for oil companies.

Of course the party of Traitors and cowards made him a delegate.

Is he a traitor or a patsy? It's not like he's actually been convicted of a crime.

Posted by: Cato on May 22, 2008 11:24 AM
24. Michael Bond @15 -

Since you are a fan of fact, allow me to correct your misstatements of same.

Yee was, in fact, charged with one or more crimes, and, in fact, there was evidence:

"He was charged with five offenses: sedition, aiding the enemy, spying, espionage, and failure to obey a general order. These charges were later reduced to mishandling classified information in addition to some minor charges."

"All court-martial charges against Yee were dropped on March 19, 2004, Maj. Gen. Geoffrey Miller "citing national security concerns that would arise from the release of the evidence,"..."

( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Yee )

Also of interest: Yee offered to undergo a debriefing, in exhcange for immunity, but the Army declined this offer because the relevant law enforcement agencies could not support Yee's request for immunity.

( http://www.southcom.mil/pa/Media/Releases/PR040319Yee.pdf )

Posted by: ewaggin on May 22, 2008 01:23 PM
25. Cato @23 -

Thank-you for conceding the point by attempting to change the subject.

Another prime example of what you do best, committing the logical fallacy of ignoratio elenchi.

Posted by: ewaggin on May 22, 2008 01:26 PM
26. TrueSoldier @ 18:

Amen, and then some: IF the DOD did have evidence that they couldnt bring - ie, believed Yee was guilty, but couldn't prove it - then WHY oh WHY did they give Yee an honorable discharge.

And then this: Even after the initial charges were dropped, the smear-merchant DOD tried to toss the dirty kitchen sink at Yee: charges of adultery & porn on govt computer.

AGAIN, these charges - have NOTHING to do with national security - were dropped.

So what now? Just don't like the guy? Well then, provide a reason ("bring it on"), or sink into your smear-merchant cesspool.

Posted by: JusticeFirst on May 22, 2008 04:39 PM
27. ewaggin @ 24

Not so fast. Charges are made by a convening authority after an Article 32 hearing, which is the military equivalent of a grand jury proceeding. There was no Article 32, the convening authority never did refer a charge to a Court Martial, and when the magnitude of their error got too hot for them to handle, they dropped it like a hot potatoe. I was a Marine Corps Judge Advocate and know how the system works. Yee's command violated military law, which requires that all arrested personnel be brought before a magistrate shortly after arrest, and along the way they also violated federal law and the U.S Constitution. Does anybody else see a problem with that?

Posted by: Michael Bond on May 22, 2008 08:55 PM
28. Michael Bond @27 -

I am willing to entertain an argument that the charges against Yee were not properly brought, or that the evidence may have been tainted due to improper procedure.

However, you claimed that "He was never charged with a crime" and that "there was no evidence".

Clearly, as a matter of fact, Yee was charged.

And unless you were privy to the proceedings, I fail to see how you can state, as a matter of fact, that there was no evidence. Or, for that matter, what the quality of the evidence was.

Posted by: ewaggin on May 23, 2008 01:34 PM
Post a comment
Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:


Remember info?