23 Nov 09
Originally posted by utherpendragonWho the hell is KSM?
ABC’s Z. Byron Wolf reports:
While the mayor and the two Democratic senators from New York are on-board with the Justice Department on the administration’s decision to try KSM and others in federal courts, there is some growing pushback among conservative Democrats.
"It will be disruptive, costly, and potentially counterproductive to try them a ...[text shortened]... aid.
[b]Personally,I have to agree w/Web on this. Anybody else agree or disagree?[/b]
23 Nov 09
2 edits
Originally posted by shavixmirKhalid Sheikh Mohammed
Who the hell is KSM?
KSM is the self-proclaimed mastermind of the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon—and a "terrorist entrepreneur," according to the 9/11 Commission report. He was the brains behind a succession of operations against the U.S., including the 1996 "Bojinka plot" to crash jetliners into American cities. Together with Osama bin Laden, he selected the 9/11 terrorists, arranged their financing and training, and ran the whole operation from abroad.
After the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan KSM eventually became bin Laden's operations chief. American and Pakistani intelligence forces captured him on March 1, 2003, in Rawalpindi, Pakistan.
Trying KSM in civilian court will be an intelligence bonanza for al Qaeda and the hostile nations that will view the U.S. intelligence methods and sources that such a trial will reveal. The proceedings will tie up judges for years on issues best left to the president and Congress.
Whether a jury ultimately convicts KSM and his fellows, or sentences them to death, is beside the point. The treatment of the 9/11 attacks as a criminal matter rather than as an act of war will cripple American efforts to fight terrorism. It is in effect a declaration that this nation is no longer at war.
KSM and his co-defendants will enjoy the benefits and rights that the Constitution accords to citizens and resident aliens—including the right to demand that the government produce in open court all of the information that it has on them, and how it got it.
Prosecutors will be forced to reveal U.S. intelligence on KSM, the methods and sources for acquiring its information, and his relationships to fellow al Qaeda operatives. The information will enable al Qaeda to drop plans and personnel whose cover is blown. It will enable it to detect our means of intelligence-gathering, and to push forward into areas we know nothing about.
This is not hypothetical, as former federal prosecutor Andrew McCarthy has explained. During the 1993 World Trade Center bombing trial of Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman aka the "blind Sheikh" standard criminal trial rules required the government to turn over to the defendants a list of 200 possible co-conspirators.
In essence, this list was a sketch of American intelligence on al Qaeda. According to Mr. McCarthy, who tried the case, it was delivered to bin Laden in Sudan on a silver platter within days of its production as a court exhibit.
Bin Laden, who was on the list, could immediately see who was compromised. He also could start figuring out how American intelligence had learned its information and anticipate what our future moves were likely to be.
Wall Street Journal
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB20001424052748704431804574537370665832850.html
23 Nov 09
Originally posted by utherpendragonWell, okay, never heard of him though. And the charge sounds as dubious as a 23$ note.
[b] Khalid Sheikh Mohammed
KSM is the self-proclaimed mastermind of the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon—and a "terrorist entrepreneur," according to the 9/11 Commission report. He was the brains behind a succession of operations against the U.S., including the 1996 "Bojinka plot" to crash jetliners into American cities. Toge ...[text shortened]... t Journal
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB20001424052748704431804574537370665832850.html
Either he's a POW (in which case he remains hostaged until the end of the conflict).
Or he's a criminal (in which case the US has to put him on trial in the US).
Or he's a war-criminal (in which case he comes before the international court in the Hague).
It's not really that difficult.
23 Nov 09
Originally posted by shavixmirbelieve it or not some people here actually believe he's going to be released in the streets of NY.
Well, okay, never heard of him though. And the charge sounds as dubious as a 23$ note.
Either he's a POW (in which case he remains hostaged until the end of the conflict).
Or he's a criminal (in which case the US has to put him on trial in the US).
Or he's a war-criminal (in which case he comes before the international court in the Hague).
It's not really that difficult.
24 Nov 09
Originally posted by generalissimoIf he's tried as a criminal (and found guilty), I presume he'll either be extradited or, if he's imprisoned in the US, after he's served his time, he will have US citizenship.
believe it or not some people here actually believe he's going to be released in the streets of NY.
You can't have it both ways.
- Joined
- 07 Jan 08
- Moves
- 34575
24 Nov 09
Originally posted by utherpendragonThe crimes were against civilians and the trials should be civilian trials. I completely fail to understand the hysteria surrounding putting a handful of criminals on trial in NY. It is nothing more than shrill fear mongering.
ABC’s Z. Byron Wolf reports:
While the mayor and the two Democratic senators from New York are on-board with the Justice Department on the administration’s decision to try KSM and others in federal courts, there is some growing pushback among conservative Democrats.
"It will be disruptive, costly, and potentially counterproductive to try them a ...[text shortened]... aid.
[b]Personally,I have to agree w/Web on this. Anybody else agree or disagree?[/b]
24 Nov 09
Originally posted by Badwaterhttp://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Geneva_Convention/Protocol_I
The crimes were against civilians and the trials should be civilian trials. I completely fail to understand the hysteria surrounding putting a handful of criminals on trial in NY. It is nothing more than shrill fear mongering.
3. In order to promote the protection of the civilian population from the effects of hostilities, combatants are obliged to distinguish themselves from the civilian population while they are engaged in an attack or in a military operation preparatory to an attack. Recognizing, however, that there are situations in armed conflicts where, owing to the nature of the hostilities an armed combatant cannot so distinguish himself, he shall retain his status as a combatant, provided that, in such situations, he carries his arms openly:
(a) during each military engagement, and (b) during such time as he is visible to the adversary while he is engaged in a military deployment preceding the launching of an attack in which he is to participate.