Guantanamo 9/11 suspects on trial

Guantanamo 9/11 suspects on trial

news.bbc.co.uk

The alleged mastermind of the 9/11 attacks on the US is appearing at a military tribunal in Guantanamo Bay.

It is the first time Khalid Sheikh Mohammed has appeared in public since he was captured in Pakistan in 2003.

(visit the link for the full news article)

The US military says that as well as admitting involvement in the 11 September 2001 attacks on Washington and New York, he has confessed to being involved in more than 30 terrorist plots around the world, including plans to attack London's Big Ben and Canary Wharf.

I hope they get the death penalty then if that is true.

news.bbc.co.uk
(visit the link for the full news article)

Originally posted by orby1976
The US military says that as well as admitting involvement in the 11 September 2001 attacks on Washington and New York, he has confessed to being involved in more than 30 terrorist plots around the world, including plans to attack London's Big Ben and Canary Wharf.

I hope they get the death penalty then if that is true.

But not before the defense and justices systems in the rest of the world get to have their own chances to investigate. Look at what's been learned about military responsiveness, homeland security, etc., from investigations into the 9/11 attacks, just in the US. If this guy really has planned/executed world-wide terrorist attacks, shouldn't the rest of the world also get a crack at him, like the US has unilaterally done?

Issues like this underscore the importance of things like the International Criminal Court for war criminals, not even necessarily from the point of view of justice, but also for pragmatic reasons such as lessons learned and improvement of security.

Shame that 'opening up' this investigation would force the government into legal positions they're not politically willing to accept.

This trial is ridiculous, useless and a waste of time and money. After these terrorist were caught and interrogated, they should have been killed immediately. This entire process is disgusting. Come to think of it, perhaps these terrorists should have been shot immediately then we would not be having trial.

reply to post by orby1976


YEAH! An eye for an eye! Excellent!

A better solution would be to educate them as to why their actions are intrinsically disgusting, and try to get them to co-operate. The intelligence coup would be phenomenal.

I hope they all get a fair trial. Not that we, or anyone else, will ever know.

"Due Process - now not for everyone!"

Surley though with it being a war, and him being the 3rd in command, why wasn't he shot on sight?.

Originally posted by orby1976
Surley though with it being a war, and him being the 3rd in command, why wasn't he shot on sight?.

Had to waterboard him until he confessed in order to shut up everyone who thinks the US government might have had a hand in the attacks...

Just read an update on this story at MSN in which this guy is quoted as "begging for the death penalty". Apparently he has said that we wants us to kill him so he "can be a martyr for a long time".

Personally I'd be happy to oblige.

I speculate, that had I been subjected to the conditions and interrogation techniques he presumably was, that I'd confess and "beg" for the death penalty also. Admittedly, he was waterboarded. What else was he subjected to?

The problem is that all information obtained from him was obtained under duress. This brings into question the integrity of said information.

To me at least, this whole scenario is nothing more than what is intended to be evidence of "closure" for the American public. "Hey everyone, we got this guy, who admitted to orchestrating and carrying out the attacks, and will soon execute him. Then you can all feel better, and stop asking questions about what happened that day.

reply to post by WhatTheory


Why stop there? Lets kill all suspected criminals, because after all, we live in the land of "guilty until proven innocent," right?

But before we kill them, let's torture them and force them into a confession, even if it's false, so that they don't have to be tortured anymore. Not only that, lets also rename torture as "enhanced interrogation techniques" so that we can bypass all the torture laws out there and use it on our own civilians.

Lets also do away with the courts systems, because after all, we know all all suspected criminals are guilty.

Great plan.

[edit on 5-6-2008 by DJMessiah]

Ok forgive me for sounding mis-informed, but what exactly is waterboarding?. I know it's simulates drowning, but how is this achieved?.

reply to post by Ian McLean

Originally posted by Ian McLean

Originally posted by orby1976
The US military says that as well as admitting involvement in the 11 September 2001 attacks on Washington and New York, he has confessed to being involved in more than 30 terrorist plots around the world, including plans to attack London's Big Ben and Canary Wharf.

I hope they get the death penalty then if that is true.

But not before the defense and justices systems in the rest of the world get to have their own chances to investigate. Look at what's been learned about military responsiveness, homeland security, etc., from investigations into the 9/11 attacks, just in the US. If this guy really has planned/executed world-wide terrorist attacks, shouldn't the rest of the world also get a crack at him, like the US has unilaterally done?

Well, you're assuming that the Brits, etc., haven't had a chance to question him, or that we haven't shared intel with them. I'd strongly suspect that the opposite is the case.

On another note... does anyone know if any of these proceedings will be recorded and released?

Anyone else feel the timing of this story is rather convenient given that, on the same day, yet another damning report has been issued by the Senate arguing that Bush knew Iraq claims weren't true?

Originally posted by Unit541
The problem is that all information obtained from him was obtained under duress. This brings into question the integrity of said information.

Which is why you verify the info first. If not true, then you start all over again. If they know anything eventually the truth will come out.
However, I believe they should have just shot them on site then there would be no problem.

Originally posted by DJMessiah
Why stop there? Lets kill all suspected criminals, because after all, we live in the land of "guilty until proven innocent," right?

Lets also do away with the courts systems, because after all, we know all all suspected criminals are guilty.

Oh boy, where do I begin????
First of all, they are not criminals, they are terrorists. Secondly, they are not U.S. citizens nor or they protected under the Geneva convention. They are terrorists who were caught on the battlefield and do not deserve any rights hence waterboarding is fine which is really not torture.

Great plan.

Yes, I agree, it is a great plan.

reply to post by dave420

I hope they all get a fair trial. Not that we, or anyone else, will ever know.

Authorities have said they plan to broadcast the trials to military bases in the United States so relatives of the victims of the attacks can see the proceedings. Source

About 35 journalists watched on closed-circuit TV in a press room inside a converted hangar, while two dozen others watched through a window from a room adjacent to the courtroom. No photographs were allowed inside the courtroom, but a sketch artist was allowed to draw the scene. Source

Some family members and press will know.

Originally posted by WhatTheory

Originally posted by DJMessiah
Why stop there? Lets kill all suspected criminals, because after all, we live in the land of "guilty until proven innocent," right?

Lets also do away with the courts systems, because after all, we know all all suspected criminals are guilty.

Oh boy, where do I begin????
First of all, they are not criminals, they are terrorists. Secondly, they are not U.S. citizens nor or they protected under the Geneva convention. They are terrorists who were caught on the battlefield and do not deserve any rights hence waterboarding is fine which is really not torture.

Great plan.

Yes, I agree, it is a great plan.

If they are not criminals then what they did was legal yes? And waterboarding is totally torture, if not, then why would we no be doing it in interrogation for every criminal caught on the street?

Originally posted by WhatTheory

First of all, they are not criminals, they are terrorists. Secondly, they are not U.S. citizens nor or they protected under the Geneva convention. They are terrorists who were caught on the battlefield and do not deserve any rights hence waterboarding is fine which is really not torture.

"... nor are they protected under the Geneva Convention" ?!
WRONG.

Geneva Convention Articles 3 and 4 (out of 4 articles.) protect the prisoners captured in the middle east by the United States.
It clearly indicates militias, insurgencies, and everything in between which might not be thought of as an official military, are to be protected under the rules of the Geneva convention in the same manor as the official enemy soldiers.

You really need to go back and read the Geneva convention.


"...waterboarding is fine which is really not torutre" ?!?!
WRONG

Torture, according to the United Nations Convention Against Torture, is "any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity."

That is EXACTLY what water boarding is.



The terrorists/insurgents/militia ARE protected by the Geneva convention.
Water boarding IS a direct form of torture.


Now, if you'd like to post an argument without blatantly lying to us, feel free.
But I'll be watching your posts a little more carefully now... and I WILL make an example of ANY liars when I come across them.

originally posted by Unit541
Had to waterboard him until he confessed in order to shut up everyone who thinks the US government might have had a hand in the attacks...

Hardly...

Summoning every thread of experience and courage, I looked Khalid in the eye and asked: "Did you do it?" The reference to September 11 was implicit. Khalid responded with little fanfare: "I am the head of the al-Qaida military committee," he began, "and Ramzi is the coordinator of the Holy Tuesday operation. And yes, we did it."

He went on: "About two and a half years before the holy raids on Washington and New York, the military committee held a meeting during which we decided to start planning for a martyrdom operation inside America. As we were discussing targets, we first thought of striking at a couple of nuclear facilities but decided against it for fear it would go out of control." Source

This interview occurred nearly 1 year before KSM was captured. He confessed and implicated Ramzi bin al-Shibh.

originally posted by johnsky
Geneva Convention Articles 3 and 4 (out of 4 articles.) protect the prisoners captured in the middle east by the United States.
It clearly indicates militias, insurgencies, and everything in between which might not be thought of as an official military, are to be protected under the rules of the Geneva convention in the same manor as the official enemy soldiers.

You really need to go back and read the Geneva convention.

Are we reading the same Geneva Convention?

Article 4
1. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:
1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict, as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.
2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:
-that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
-that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
-that of carrying arms openly;
-that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war. Wiki

I am ready to be made an example of.