Khalid Sheikh Mohammed's trial alleged to be next Monday

[Undesired Walrus]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/3628457/Architect-of-911-to-go-on-trial.html

For conspiracy masterminds, the Bush administration sure cocked up with this arrangement:

He will be taken to a high security courtroom to sit beside four co-defendants and a glass wall - all that will separate him from 10 families who lost loved ones in the terrorist atrocities which he is accused of masterminding.

[HyJinX]

And according to this story...the terrorists are requesting that the courts let them plead guilty for the sake of being seen as martyrs. Another big blow to the truth movement.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081208/ap_on_re_la_am_ca/cb_guantanamo_sept11_trial

[MikeW]

Thanks for the link, but this is a pretrial hearing. The case itself won't be popping up for a while, dependent on what Obama does when he gets into power.

[parky76]

Whats the point?

#1. we KNOW 9-11 was an inside job...so he didnt do it.
#2. we KNOW there is no way a stinking, ignorant, knuckle dragging cave-Arab could have pulled of anything like this.
#3. we KNOW...Arabs are too stupid to fly...let alone initiate complicated manuevers.
#4. we KNOW...that Islam is a religion of peace and love, therefore it is IMPOSSIBLE for any Muslim to have been a part of this.

basically...its a sham!!

=)

[T.A.M.]

All of this said,

Those in charge of interrogating KSM ****ed it up. They had to know that the waterboarding would come back to bite them.

If he goes free due to the waterboarding issue, as much as I hate to say it, but those who carried it out have themselves to blame.

TAM:)

[1337m4n]

Truthers: According to you, this man is innocent.

What are you going to do about it?

[Crazytimes]

KSM is going to get on the stand and say

"Since when does fire melt steel ?"
"This is very obviouisly a controlled demolition"
"A missle had to have hit the pentagon. I don't even see a plane in that video"
"What about the thermite found at ground zero"
"I am just a patsy"

[dtugg]

KSM is going to get on the stand and say

"Since when does fire melt steel ?"
"This is very obviouisly a controlled demolition"
"A missle had to have hit the pentagon. I don't even see a plane in that video"
"What about the thermite found at ground zero"
"I am just a patsy"

It would be funny as hell if he did that.

[UNLoVedRebel]

It has to be in the form of a question.

"If I'm guilty, then why did the towers fall faster than free fall speed?"
"If I'm guilty, then why is there no evidence of Flight 77 at the pentagon?"
"Have you guys ever heard of Operation Northwoods?"

[Crazytimes]

It has to be in the form of a question.

"If I'm guilty, then why did the towers fall faster than free fall speed?"
"If I'm guilty, then why is there no evidence of Flight 77 at the pentagon?"
"Have you guys ever heard of Operation Northwoods?"


Damnit, you're right.

I would also add

"Did you guys know Silverstein said pull it"

[T.A.M.]

As horrible as the whole thing is, the above exchange sounds like the makings of the next Trey Parker/ Matt Stone movie.

TAM:)

[Brainster]

All of this said,

Those in charge of interrogating KSM ****ed it up. They had to know that the waterboarding would come back to bite them.

If he goes free due to the waterboarding issue, as much as I hate to say it, but those who carried it out have themselves to blame.

I hope that all the anti-waterboarding folks demand freedom for KSM, and offer to put him up in their homes.

[T.A.M.]

Difficult topic, and one perhaps for another section of the JREF. I am an "Anti-Torture" folk. I am not sure if Waterboarding constituted torture or not. It is not a subject I know enough about. I know it is a horrendous technique involving severe physical stress and discomfort, and that alone MIGHT make it "Torture".

I suspect, I am, one of those "Anti-Waterboarding" folks. Sorry, but he ain't coming to stay with me.

TAM:)

[Heiwa]

Truthers: According to you, this man is innocent.

What are you going to do about it?

Well, at every crime there are plenty of people confessing having done it! So KSM is just one of those. And innocent until proven the opposite, of course.
But KSM will defend himself without any assistance. This is typical of people confessing anything. So let's see what happens in court!

[Drudgewire]

Well, at every crime there are plenty of people confessing having done it! So KSM is just one of those. And innocent until proven the opposite, of course.
But KSM will defend himself without any assistance. This is typical of people confessing anything. So let's see what happens in court!


There's a :rule10load of difference between some innocent nutcase calling up out of the blue and saying "I did it, arrest me" and someone who has been arrested after evidence has been gathered against him and he'd gone into hiding to elude his captors doing the same thing.

You understand that, right?

[Arus808]

and the fact that he admitted to the crime, PRIOR to being captured and PRIOR to being (allegedly) waterboarded.

[Brainster]

Let's not forget that confessing past deeds (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/cpquery/?&sid=cp110yi67F&refer=&r_n=sr090.110&db_id=110&item=&sel=TOC_48698&) was not the only thing that KSM did under interrogation:

Under interrogation, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed provided information that helped stop another planned terrorist attack on the United States. K.S.M. also provided information that led to the capture of a terrorist named Zubair. And K.S.M.'s interrogation also led to the identification and capture of an entire 17-member Jemaah Islamiya terrorist cell in Southeast Asia.

[JamesB]

Also don't forget that the confession is hardly the only thing tying him to the attacks.

http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Feb2008/d20080211chargesheet.pdf

[parky76]

It has to be in the form of a question.

"If I'm guilty, then why did the towers fall faster than free fall speed?"
"If I'm guilty, then why is there no evidence of Flight 77 at the pentagon?"
"Have you guys ever heard of Operation Northwoods?"

that would be some funny stuff

[dudalb]

Let's not forget that confessing past deeds (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/cpquery/?&sid=cp110yi67F&refer=&r_n=sr090.110&db_id=110&item=&sel=TOC_48698&) was not the only thing that KSM did under interrogation:

So he is doing a Sammy The Bull/Joe Valachi on his Comrades.
And they will be out gunning for him.since although they don't call it that "Omerta" is probably a basic creed of the Al Qaida types.
All of a sudden his walking does not seem so bad....

[Jonnyclueless]

Well, at every crime there are plenty of people confessing having done it! So KSM is just one of those. And innocent until proven the opposite, of course.
But KSM will defend himself without any assistance. This is typical of people confessing anything. So let's see what happens in court!

Maybe he will go with the Pizza box defense.

[Undesired Walrus]

Truthers: According to you, this man is innocent.

What are you going to do about it?

Truther rule #232: If a case arises in which you would have to ethically do something, make the proposed injustice ambiguous enough to avoid motivation.

Example: "Well, he (KSM) probably did a lot of bad things in his life"

[Undesired Walrus]

I hope that all the anti-waterboarding folks demand freedom for KSM, and offer to put him up in their homes.

That's a strange piece of logic. Is McCain -one of these anti-waterboarding folks you describe- waiting at home with the kettle on and fresh sheets for Mr Mohammed?


Let's not forget that confessing past deeds was not the only thing that KSM did under interrogation:

Yet he refused to give up the names of spies in LA and South Africa. Hell, if performing waterboarding is worth the above results, why not advocate bringing out the flameflower and nail gun? They could even dust those cobwebs off an old Tudor torture machine.

[gumboot]

All of this said,

Those in charge of interrogating KSM ****ed it up. They had to know that the waterboarding would come back to bite them.

If he goes free due to the waterboarding issue, as much as I hate to say it, but those who carried it out have themselves to blame.

TAM:)



I suspect if the information they gained from Waterboarding helped to save lives on the ground in Afghanistan, those who conducted it will feel that it was worthwhile.

You've got to remember that the people who conducted the waterboarding were intelligence people, not law enforcement. Their job is to gather information that can aid the armed forces in the successful prosecution of the war. They're not interested in capturing criminals and locking them up.

In fact the CIA's reluctance to see potential assets being locked up and prosecuted is one of the primary causes of the pre-9/11 failure of cooperation between the CIA and FBI.

[Brainster]

That's a strange piece of logic. Is McCain -one of these anti-waterboarding folks you describe- waiting at home with the kettle on and fresh sheets for Mr Mohammed?

I disagree with McCain on the subject of waterboarding.

Yet he refused to give up the names of spies in LA and South Africa. Hell, if performing waterboarding is worth the above results, why not advocate bringing out the flameflower and nail gun? They could even dust those cobwebs off an old Tudor torture machine.

One of these things is not like the other, one of these things just isn't the same.

[Homeland Insurgency]

And according to this story...the terrorists are requesting that the courts let them plead guilty for the sake of being seen as martyrs. Another big blow to the truth movement.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081208/ap_on_re_la_am_ca/cb_guantanamo_sept11_trial

How so? They want to be martyrs therefore they are?

You seem to liken yourself to be a debunker but that's not really true is it?

vi·car·i·ous

1 a: serving instead of someone or something else b: that has been delegated (vicarious authority)

2: performed or suffered by one person as a substitute for another or to the benefit or advantage of another : substitutionary (a vicarious sacrifice)

3: experienced or realized through imaginative or sympathetic participation in the experience of another

4: occurring in an unexpected or abnormal part of the body instead of the usual one (vicarious menstruation manifested by bleeding from the nose)

[parky76]

I think they dont trust our justice system and just want their 40 virgins already.

[dtugg]

And of course, you don't get the 72 virgins for pleading guilty and receiving the death penalty over something that you didn't do.

[Homeland Insurgency]

And of course, you don't get the 72 virgins for pleading guilty and receiving the death penalty over something that you didn't do.

Either way there is no chance for 72 virgins now. But they can dream can't they? Or is it pretend?

You can relate. You come here everyday and pretend.

[dtugg]

Either way there is no chance for 72 virgins now. But they can dream can't they? Or is it pretend?

You can relate. You come here everyday and pretend.

What the hell are you talking about? If they indeed did pull off 9/11 they would get the 72 virgins for been executed over it according to their fanatical beliefs. Do you even think before you type?

[Jonnyclueless]

You can't be a martyr to God by pretending to have committed an act in his name. Doesn't quite work that way. You know, the whole all-powerful, all-knowing bit. An KSM would be well aware of this.

So now, what is his motivation?

[Cl1mh4224rd]

You can relate. You come here everyday and pretend.


Reported.

[Drudgewire]

Proving once again twoofers are as good at zingers as they are at research and critical thinking.

Well, gotta give HI credit for consistency. :rolleyes:

[Homeland Insurgency]

You can't be a martyr to God by pretending to have committed an act in his name. Doesn't quite work that way. You know, the whole all-powerful, all-knowing bit. An KSM would be well aware of this.

So now, what is his motivation?

What's your motivation for coming here everyday and pretending?

Will they not be Martyrs in the eyes of people in the Middle East who also want to believe in the fairytale victory against the Great Satan?

Why does anyone want to be famous?

[Homeland Insurgency]

What the hell are you talking about? If they indeed did pull off 9/11 they would get the 72 virgins for been executed over it according to their fanatical beliefs. Do you even think before you type?

Try to think when you read. What do they have to hang on to? Even if KSM were found innocent of 9/11 (which will never happen) will he be set free? I mean how many things did he confess to? It wasn't just 9/11. Being waterboarded he may have confessed to shooting JR. Does it mean something?

[PhantomWolf]

KSM and the other four are wanting to have guilty verdicts entered for them. Apparently there is concern that two of them aren't mentally well enough to do so, and it is very possible that the Judge will refuse to accept them. Personally I'd like to see the Judge say no and suspend the whole thing until Obama's Administration decides if they are going to move the whole thing to a civilian court. I'd also like to see the death sentence taken off the table, they deserve to rot in jail for the rest of their lives, not get a quick end becoming Martyrs in the eyes of their compatriots.

[dtugg]

Try to think when you read. What do they have to hang on to? Even if KSM were found innocent of 9/11 (which will never happen) will he be set free? I mean how many things did he confess to? It wasn't just 9/11. Being waterboarded he may have confessed to shooting JR. Does it mean something?

Again, what the hell are you talking about. You said there is no chance of the 72 virgins now. I was just pointing out this is not true if he is guilty. Is there something wrong with your brain?

[Jonnyclueless]

What's your motivation for coming here everyday and pretending?

Will they not be Martyrs in the eyes of people in the Middle East who also want to believe in the fairytale victory against the Great Satan?

Why does anyone want to be famous?

So you don't understand how martyrdom works then.

BTW, I suppose KSM is on trial for doing #2 in the Urinal.

[WildCat]

KSM and the other four are wanting to have guilty verdicts entered for them. Apparently there is concern that two of them aren't mentally well enough to do so, and it is very possible that the Judge will refuse to accept them. Personally I'd like to see the Judge say no and suspend the whole thing until Obama's Administration decides if they are going to move the whole thing to a civilian court. I'd also like to see the death sentence taken off the table, they deserve to rot in jail for the rest of their lives, not get a quick end becoming Martyrs in the eyes of their compatriots.
You don't think 9/11 was a war crime?

[PhantomWolf]

You don't think 9/11 was a war crime?

No I don't. AQ is not a country and there was no declaration of war. 9/11 was a terrorist act and a that means it was a murder. A mass murder, but still murder. It should be tried in a criminal court, not a military one.

[WildCat]

No I don't. AQ is not a country and there was no declaration of war. 9/11 was a terrorist act and a that means it was a murder. A mass murder, but still murder. It should be tried in a criminal court, not a military one.
Only a country can commit a war crime?

Neither the Geneva Conventions nor the US Code defines it in such a manner, this appears to be your own personal definition, certainly not a legal one.

[gumboot]

Only a country can commit a war crime?

Neither the Geneva Conventions nor the US Code defines it in such a manner, this appears to be your own personal definition, certainly not a legal one.


A war crime, by definition can only occur during an international armed conflict. It would need to be established whether Al Qaeda and the United States were belligerents at war. Given that Al Qaeda do not appear to operate under a military command structure, given that Al Qaeda do not carry arms openly, and given that Al Qaeda do not bear a fixed emblem visible from a distance, they cannot be considered parties to the conflict, and therefore not belligerents, and therefore their actions are not war crimes.

[T.A.M.]

Didn't OBL declare war on the USA back in 1996 or something? So technically, it was an act of war, was it not, by Al-Qaeda, on America?

Am I right?

TAM:)

[The Doc]

If the conspiracists honestly believe what they preach, then they see Khalid Sheikh Mohammed as an innocent man who is being framed by the true perpetrators. I would expect that if they had any integrity and decency they would take to the streets to save the life of a man they believe is innocent. Let's see if they will.

[Drudgewire]

Didn't OBL declare war on the USA back in 1996 or something? So technically, it was an act of war, was it not, by Al-Qaeda, on America?

Am I right?

TAM:)


That's what I was thinking. That said, this is one with a lot of gray area where I sit and am really impressed by the arguments both sides are making.

:popcorn1

[gumboot]

Didn't OBL declare war on the USA back in 1996 or something? So technically, it was an act of war, was it not, by Al-Qaeda, on America?

Am I right?

TAM:)


No. The Laws of War are actually quite restricting in terms of who qualifies as a belligerent - that's what all the fuss was about with the Guantanamo Bay detainees.

An act of war can only be carried out be legal combatants during an international armed conflict.

Al Qaeda members do not qualify as legal combatants for various reasons, and therefore Al Qaeda cannot engage in an international armed conflict against the USA. Thus any action by Al Qaeda cannot be an act of war.

The exception to this is the specific case of the invasion of Afghanistan where Al Qaeda can be considered an irregular militia who took up arms spontaneously to resist an occupier.

[T.A.M.]

So OBL's Declaration of War, is not technically an Act of War.

Well given defense lawyers live to defeat things on technicalities (sorry LashL and others), lol, this should be interesting.

TAM:)

[JamesB]

A war crime, by definition can only occur during an international armed conflict. It would need to be established whether Al Qaeda and the United States were belligerents at war. Given that Al Qaeda do not appear to operate under a military command structure, given that Al Qaeda do not carry arms openly, and given that Al Qaeda do not bear a fixed emblem visible from a distance, they cannot be considered parties to the conflict, and therefore not belligerents, and therefore their actions are not war crimes.

Except all the things you list are themselves violations of the laws of war...

[dtugg]

gumboot, whose definition of "war crime" are you using?

That being said, I would rather see these monsters tried in a regular civilian court. And, I don't think that they should let KSM plead guilty and let that be the end of it. They should let the trial happen and let the public see the evidence, that would also make it so it is much more difficult for the twoofers to claim that his trial was a sham.

Also, I would prefer that they not get the death penalty. It would be a much worse punishment for them to spend the rest of their lives in a tiny cell at ADX Florence. From what I here about the place, I would rather be dead then there. I would happily contribute a few cents each year to ensuring this happens.

[T.A.M.]

Agreed. The ultimate punishment for any of these wannabe Martyrs, is life imprisonment with no chance of parole.

TAM:)

[Darkhole]

Bad news for the truthers.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/09/us/09gitmo.html?_r=1&th&emc=th

Cuba — The five Guantánamo detainees charged with coordinating the Sept. 11 attacks told a military judge on Monday that they wanted to confess in full, a move that seemed to challenge the government to put them to death.

Skip to next paragraph
Enlarge This Image

Pool illustration by Janet Hamlin
Ramzi bin al-Shibh, left, Walid bin Attash and Khalid Shaikh Mohammed on Monday at a hearing in Guantánamo Bay.

Multimedia
Interactive
The Guantánamo Docket, an Interactive Database
Related
Times Topics: Khalid Shaikh Mohammed | Guantánamo Bay Naval Base (Cuba) | Sept. 11, 2001Readers' Comments
Readers shared their thoughts on this article.
Read All Comments (110) »
The request, which was the result of hours of private meetings among the detainees, appeared intended to undercut the government’s plan for a high-profile trial while drawing international attention to what some of the five men have said was a desire for martyrdom.

But the military judge, Col. Stephen R. Henley of the Army, said a number of legal questions about how the commissions are to deal with capital cases had to be resolved before guilty pleas could be accepted.

The case is likely to remain in limbo for weeks or months, presenting the Obama administration with a new issue involving detainees at the naval base at Guantánamo Bay to resolve when it takes office next month.

[moon1969]

Twoofers call these people cavemen when Osama Bin Laden has a college degree in civil engineering that he earned in 1979 but what do they know just a buch of cavemen compared to the ever so smart and genius twoofers.

[parky76]

he should get life....in prison. with lots of horny prisoners. =)

[parky76]

Um.....the fact that he was tortured might make his confession worthless. If I was captured by the Iranians, was tortured, and then "confessed", Id hope that my confession would be thrown out.

[defaultdotxbe]

Um.....the fact that he was tortured might make his confession worthless. If I was captured by the Iranians, was tortured, and then "confessed", Id hope that my confession would be thrown out.
Khalid Shaikh Mohammed confessed admitted guilt (wasnt an official confession since it was a statement on al jazeera) before he was even captured

[WildCat]

Except all the things you list are themselves violations of the laws of war...
Exactly.

You don't get a free pass to violate the laws of armed conflict by... violating the laws of armed conflict.

[gumboot]

So OBL's Declaration of War, is not technically an Act of War.


His declaration of war is meaningless. Were I to declare war on the USA, no war would exist between myself and the USA, and were the USA to come and bomb my house it will still constitute murder (and, ironically, an Act of War against my country!).

[gumboot]

Except all the things you list are themselves violations of the laws of war...


No, they're not. They're the elements that define a legally recognised combatant. Anyone who engages in an armed conflict, who breaches those conditions, is an illegal combatant, and therefore a common criminal, that can be treated as such by the holding power, and has no rights under the Geneva Convention.

They cannot be charged with War Crimes, because only a combatant can be charged with war crimes. But they can be charged with whatever other criminal offense the holding power sees fit.

[gumboot]

gumboot, whose definition of "war crime" are you using?


A war crime is any act that violates the laws of International Armed Conflict, including the Hague and Geneva Conventions.

[gumboot]

Exactly.

You don't get a free pass to violate the laws of armed conflict by... violating the laws of armed conflict.


No one said anything about a free pass. If you do not qualify as a legal combatant you certainly don't get a free pass. A holding power can pretty much do whatever they want with you.

The Hague Convention is really pretty clear on this matter. The Laws of War only apply to legal combatants.

[WildCat]

The Hague Convention is really pretty clear on this matter. The Laws of War only apply to legal combatants.
Can you link to this "clear" law?

[WildCat]

One other thing Gumboot, if what you say is true, how is it that Fikret Abdić was convicted of war crimes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fikret_Abdi%C4%87)? He was not a lawful combatant, nor was he part of the army of any recognized country.

[dtugg]

A war crime is any act that violates the laws of International Armed Conflict, including the Hague and Geneva Conventions.

I'll be honest, I am not too clear on what these laws state. But either way, I don't think that there is any way that they should supersede whatever laws the United States is using to hold them as war criminals. I prefer that my country does not give part of its sovereignty up to a collection of other countries.

[JamesB]

No, they're not. They're the elements that define a legally recognised combatant. Anyone who engages in an armed conflict, who breaches those conditions, is an illegal combatant, and therefore a common criminal, that can be treated as such by the holding power, and has no rights under the Geneva Convention.

They cannot be charged with War Crimes, because only a combatant can be charged with war crimes. But they can be charged with whatever other criminal offense the holding power sees fit.

I see your point, but I think the ICTY would disagree with your conclusions.

[bonavada]

Some intersting debate here. Was reminded of the stance taken by various British governments vis-a-vis the IRA during the troubles in Northern Ireland.
I don't think it was never acknowledged by London that a state of war existed in NI and I believe all captured terrorists were tried by the Civil Courts.
I wonder why it was deemed necessary for the US government to go the millitary justice route?

BV

[WildCat]

Some intersting debate here. Was reminded of the stance taken by various British governments vis-a-vis the IRA during the troubles in Northern Ireland.
I don't think it was never acknowledged by London that a state of war existed in NI and I believe all captured terrorists were tried by the Civil Courts.
I wonder why it was deemed necessary for the US government to go the millitary justice route?

BV
NI is part of the UK, not a foreign power.

[bonavada]

NI is part of the UK, not a foreign power.

True but a lot of the IRA were from over the Border in Eire. So could be considered foreign surely? And these people commited terrorist acts against UK nationals in the UK, NI, Eire and continental Europe. There are parallels with Al-Qaida/US in that sense.

BV

[JamesB]

I wonder why it was deemed necessary for the US government to go the millitary justice route?

BV

Well for starters US criminal law has some very specific guidelines as far as handling defendants and evidence and such. What are they supposed to do, teach privates how to say the Miranda rights, in Pashtun?

[JamesB]

Um.....the fact that he was tortured might make his confession worthless. If I was captured by the Iranians, was tortured, and then "confessed", Id hope that my confession would be thrown out.

I seriously doubt they had to torture him to get him to confess, he was more than likely happy to boast about that. From what I have read the waterboarding was to get him to talk about future operations, which obviously he would have a very strong incentive to shut up about. Regardless the law that the military commissions are working under specifically state that anything they say under duress cannot be used as evidence in the trial. Regardless, there is plenty of other evidence against him anyway.

[gumboot]

Can you link to this "clear" law?

Hague (IV) - 1908 (http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/hague04.asp)

Article 1.

The laws, rights, and duties of war apply not only to armies, but also to militia and volunteer corps fulfilling the following conditions:

To be commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;

To have a fixed distinctive emblem recognizable at a distance;

To carry arms openly; and

To conduct their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

In countries where militia or volunteer corps constitute the army, or form part of it, they are included under the denomination "army."

Art. 2.

The inhabitants of a territory which has not been occupied, who, on the approach of the enemy, spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading troops without having had time to organize themselves in accordance with Article 1, shall be regarded as belligerents if they carry arms openly and if they respect the laws and customs of war.

[gumboot]

One other thing Gumboot, if what you say is true, how is it that Fikret Abdić was convicted of war crimes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fikret_Abdi%C4%87)? He was not a lawful combatant, nor was he part of the army of any recognized country.


According to wikipedia:

When the government 5th Corps of Army of Bosnia and Herzegovina, based in the south part of the Bihać pocket in Western Bosnia[9] tried to end the existence of APWB, Abdić raised an army which was supplied, trained, financed by (and fought alongside) the Army of Republika Srpska and Serbian counter-intelligence against the Army of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina (ARBiH) and Bosniaks loyal to Izetbegović.

This would qualify him as a legal combatant under Article 2 of Hague IV (1908).

Of course, given that he was convicted in a domestic court, not an international tribunal, this is somewhat irrelevant. A country can designate stealing cookies from the cookie jar as a war crime if it wants, and label any convicted cookie stealer as a war criminal.

[gumboot]

I see your point, but I think the ICTY would disagree with your conclusions.

Here's a list of all indictees of the ICTY (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_indictees_of_the_International_Criminal_Tr ibunal_for_the_former_Yugoslavia). Looking through them, it appears those charged with war crimes are all government officials or legal combatants - at least in the cases where there's sufficient information to make a judgement either way. Do you have any evidence that any civilians have been charged with war crimes by this court (bear in mind they are not just prosecuting people for war crimes)?

[gumboot]

I'll be honest, I am not too clear on what these laws state. But either way, I don't think that there is any way that they should supersede whatever laws the United States is using to hold them as war criminals. I prefer that my country does not give part of its sovereignty up to a collection of other countries.


Well the matter of the detainees from the War on Terror is a very murky one, and not easily solved because the ILAC were not really designed for things like terrorism.

However you're wrong to talk of the ILAC superseding US law. The ILAC is part of US law. Further, the ILAC applies in a context in which the USA has no sovereignty (the exception would be if a foreign power invaded the USA, which obviously hasn't happened).

International law does not impose on national sovereignty - indeed, it recognises it. It is designed to function in circumstances where a single nation's sovereignty does not apply.

Now, you have things like the USA's ridiculous and unenforceable claim that they have sovereignty over the entire world, but that's meaningless.

[Tin Foil Timothy]

Either these people are tried in a Federal court or the whole thing is worthless.

[Tin Foil Timothy]

Um.....the fact that he was tortured might make his confession worthless. If I was captured by the Iranians, was tortured, and then "confessed", Id hope that my confession would be thrown out.

For once I agree with you.

[skepticalcriticalguy]

Either these people are tried in a Federal court or the whole thing is worthless.

Seriously, yes. What happened to this country. You are charged, you have a trial, you are either convicted or acquitted.

Maybe there would be no Truth Movement if they just tried these people in the open. Seems they (the gubmint) are hiding something. Close Guantanimo. Let's get back to being America. Sheesh.

[PhantomWolf]

Under the Hague Convention AQ members should be called legeal combatants because they are either "militia and volunteer corps fulfilling the following conditions" in regards to action in Afghanistans. I guess one could argue about them not wearing uniform as such, but then I don't remember the Afghanis doing that well ever.

You could also say that they are "The inhabitants of a territory which has not been occupied, who, on the approach of the enemy, spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading troops without having had time to organize themselves in accordance with Article 1, shall be regarded as belligerents if they carry arms openly and if they respect the laws and customs of war."

The issue here is that the US didn't want to have to respect either the Hague or Geneva Conventions, not it's own constitution when it came to this group.

Regardless of their actions in Afghanistan, their actions on 9/11 were not under the banner of armed conflict, and thus were not war crimes. They were criminal offences and should be tried in Criminal Court. Bush's Adminstration has tried to sidestep International and Domestic Law in this case because he wanted to remove their rights to allow torture, but in doing so, he's acted in an inappropriate manner and one that should be set right.

[cludgie]

Some intersting debate here. Was reminded of the stance taken by various British governments vis-a-vis the IRA during the troubles in Northern Ireland.
I don't think it was never acknowledged by London that a state of war existed in NI and I believe all captured terrorists were tried by the Civil Courts.
I wonder why it was deemed necessary for the US government to go the millitary justice route?

BV

It wasn't quite that straightforward though. If you were put on trial for terrorism in NI then you had no right to trial by jury, the case was heard only by Judges (admittedly mainly to stop jury-tampering and also for impartiality reasons). Those arrested and tried on the mainland got a normal trial.

Also a number of those convicted for terrorism and terrorist-related offences have been released early as part of peace overtures once it all came to an end, which (albeit unofficially) is kind of like them being treated as combatants and not straightforward criminals.

[gumboot]

Under the Hague Convention AQ members should be called legeal combatants because they are either "militia and volunteer corps fulfilling the following conditions" in regards to action in Afghanistans. I guess one could argue about them not wearing uniform as such, but then I don't remember the Afghanis doing that well ever.


This is why it's murky.

1) Some of the people detained were not captured in Afghanistan.
2) Some of those detained were foreigners who were not supposed to be in Afghanistan (third parties to a conflict are not allowed to join in under the Hague Conventions)
3) It's unclear how many were actually combatants
4) If they have simply been detained as combatants they have not committed any war crimes and should be repatriated to Afghanistan (the USA ceased to be the occupying power when the Government of Afghanistan was formed)

It should be pointed out that Al Qaeda members would not qualify under Article 1 of the Hague because they are not under a command structure. However they would arguably qualify under Article 2 (this is questionable because most Al Qaeda members are third parties to the conflict).

[gumboot]

The US military really screwed this up. The army should have been issued orders to execute these people on sight.

[Wolrab]

The defense has a whole slew of expert witnesses they can subpoena:
Dr. Judy Wood
Fetzer
Dr. Griffin
Dr.Jones
CIT
Ace Baker
Hutchison

Case dismissed!
This is the opportunity for a new investigation the truthers have been waiting for!

[SpaceMonkeyZero]

I hope that all the anti-waterboarding folks demand freedom for KSM, and offer to put him up in their homes.

He could be hired by Rosie O'Donnell as her body double. Or to be hired out to do her public appearances like Gallagher did with his brother Gallagher 2.

[SpaceMonkeyZero]

Agreed. The ultimate punishment for any of these wannabe Martyrs, is life imprisonment with no chance of parole.

TAM:)

Put him in that Super Max prison in Montana (or was it Colorado) that housed John Gotti, and the Unabomber.

And decorate his cell with Hello Kitty memorabilia.

[SpaceMonkeyZero]

Bad news for the truthers.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/09/us/09gitmo.html?_r=1&th&emc=th

I guess they don't realize that in America, confessing to your crime is a move to AVOID the death penalty. If they want to be martyrs they should deny deny deny right to the end.

[dtugg]

I guess they don't realize that in America, confessing to your crime is a move to AVOID the death penalty. If they want to be martyrs they should deny deny deny right to the end.

Sure, sometimes prosecutors in the US will trade a guilty plea for taking the death penalty off the table. But I seriously doubt that this will happen here because of the seriousness of their crimes and also because they aren't being tried in a regular civilian court that is bogged down. Also, brother Moussaoui plead guilty and was one vote away from getting his martyrdom and he didn't even really have much to do with 9/11. And because they want the death penalty, they have no position to trade anything.

[JamesB]

Here's a list of all indictees of the ICTY (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_indictees_of_the_International_Criminal_Tr ibunal_for_the_former_Yugoslavia). Looking through them, it appears those charged with war crimes are all government officials or legal combatants - at least in the cases where there's sufficient information to make a judgement either way. Do you have any evidence that any civilians have been charged with war crimes by this court (bear in mind they are not just prosecuting people for war crimes)?

I was referring to your previous list. The wars in the former Yugoslavia were not declared international conflicts. Sure, they were among various ethnic groups, but then so was Afghanistan. While there were some form of uniforms this was not universally followed, but even the Taliban wore a uniform of sorts. And weapons were not always carried openly. There also were various militia groups which did not follow a strict chain of command.

[Crazytimes]

My truther friend believes KSM has been tortured so much that any actions he is taking now mean nothing. In his mind, if he confesses it is because of the torture. He also thinks that if 9/11 were an inside job that KSM could have been working for the US gov. I asked why he isnt angry that they are bringing him to trial and he jumps right back to the fact that KSM is mentally ill because of the tortures.

You can tell my friend is a blast at parties. ;)

[dtugg]

My truther friend believes KSM has been tortured so much that any actions he is taking now mean nothing. In his mind, if he confesses it is because of the torture. He also thinks that if 9/11 were an inside job that KSM could have been working for the US gov. I asked why he isnt angry that they are bringing him to trial and he jumps right back to the fact that KSM is mentally ill because of the tortures.

You can tell my friend is a blast at parties. ;)

Did you tell him that KSM bragged about the whole thing before he was even captured?

[Crazytimes]

Did you tell him that KSM bragged about the whole thing before he was even captured?

Yes, he asks "What does that prove"

He is so lost. He also thinks the gov was inolved in the 1993 bombings.

[defaultdotxbe]

My truther friend believes KSM has been tortured so much that any actions he is taking now mean nothing. In his mind, if he confesses it is because of the torture. He also thinks that if 9/11 were an inside job that KSM could have been working for the US gov. I asked why he isnt angry that they are bringing him to trial and he jumps right back to the fact that KSM is mentally ill because of the tortures.

You can tell my friend is a blast at parties. ;)
this is a big sign that a particular CTers is beyond hope, its the "heads i win, tails you lose" argument

KSM's confession was under duress, so he didnt it, but even if he did do it the government is still responsible

[JihadJane]

this is a big sign that a particular CTers is beyond hope, its the "heads i win, tails you lose" argument

KSM's confession was under duress, so he didnt it, but even if he did do it the government is still responsible

Coins have more than two sides.

Who is/was Kahlid Sheikh Mohammed?



Sept. 11's Smoking Gun: The Many Faces of Saeed Sheikh


The ISI: “The Invisible Government”

By Paul Thompson (September 2002)

"As the London Times has put it, Saeed Sheikh “is no ordinary terrorist but a man who has connections that reach high into Pakistan’s military and intelligence elite and into the innermost circles of Osama Bin Laden and the al-Qaeda organization.” [London Times, 4/21/02] To understand why Saeed is so important in understanding 9/11, it is necessary to first understand the Pakistan’s intelligence agency, the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) ..."

http://www.historycommons.org/essay.jsp?article=essaysaeed


Kahlid Sheikh Mohammed - Guilty?

Troubling 9/11 trials

by Michael Kane (15 Feb 2008 )

"Kahlid Sheikh Mohammed (KSM) was charged this week with murder and terrorism in Bush’s “military commissions” tribunal. Nothing that comes about from this “trial” can be trusted. ..."

http://mkane.gnn.tv/blogs/27123/Kahlid_Sheikh_Mohammed_Guilty



The "Capture" Of Khalid Shaikh Mohammed

Is there more to the capture of Khalid Shaikh Mohammed than meets the eye?

by Paul Thompson (March 4, 2003)



"Khalid Shaikh Mohammed was captured in Rawalpindi, Pakistan on March 1, 2003. General elation greeted the news. Porter Goss (R), chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, even proclaimed, "This is equal to the liberation of Paris in the second World War." [AP, 3/2/03 (C)] But it's not that simple. Frankly, the official story of his arrest is a mass of lies, cover-ups and contradictions. It is highly likely Mohammed was not arrested on that day. What exactly did happen is unclear, but the details of his arrest suggest something very disturbing is going on. ..."

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0303/S00027.htm

[JamesB]

Coins have more than two sides.



Wow, so not only have truthers revolutionized the fields of physics and structural engineering, but apparently Euclidean geometry too. :eye-poppi

[dtugg]

Just because somebody writes something on the Internet doesn't make it true. Let's take the second one you listed. He writes this:

On September 10th there was a key NSA intercept between KSM and Mohammed Atta where KSM says “The Match is about to begin. Tomorrow (9/11) is zero hour.”

That “match” was the war games of September 11th.

The NSA says they never shared this data with anyone. But at the time there was a $2 million reward for KSM’s capture. The FBI had built an antenna in the Indian Ocean devoted to listening to KSM’s calls. So even if the NSA didn’t share their intercept info (which is likely untrue anyway) the FBI likely had their own intercept.

The 9/11 war games were the opportunity for the attacks to be successful. For some reason, when the US Air Force knew that Islamists were planning on using hijacked airliners as weapons to hit key American targets, the Air Force staged war games that pulled fighter assets away from the main targets in the country.

Where do you get this crap, Jane? Did you just type Khalid Sheikh Mohammed into google and post anything that you found that is negative for the USG?

Why does Kane think the "match" refers to the wargames? It seems unlikely that KSM would even know about that. Much more likely that he was talking about about the attacks themselves.

Why does Kane think that the USAF knew that terrorists were planning on hijacking planes and crashing them into buildings? Is this based on the extremely vague intercept that the NSA and perhaps the FBI got the day before?

Does Kane know that wargames are planned far in advanced or does he think they just put that one together at the last moment? Does he know that no exercises took place as NORAD found out about the hijackings before the exercises were scheduled to start? Does he know that no fighter assets were pulled away?

Your source is discredited. I don't care what he says about anything. I didn't read the other two articles because they are much longer and I don't have the time. But given your ability to pick them as based on Kane's piece of garbage, they are probably just as bad.

[JihadJane]

Wow, so not only have truthers revolutionized the fields of physics and structural engineering, but apparently Euclidean geometry too. :eye-poppi

All coins have at least three sides, unless you live in Flatland.

[JihadJane]

Just because somebody writes something on the Internet doesn't make it true. Let's take the second one you listed. He writes this:

.....

Where do you get this crap, Jane? Did you just type Khalid Sheikh Mohammed into google and post anything that you found that is negative for the USG?

No, ugg, I didn't. Kane is a well known researcher.

Why does Kane think the "match" refers to the wargames? It seems unlikely that KSM would even know about that. Much more likely that he was talking about about the attacks themselves.

It was Barbara Honegger Honegger, a former member of the Reagan administration, who first suggested that it was most logical to consider that "match" referred to the 911 war games

http://911review.org/Sept11Wiki/Honegger,Barbara.shtml

PTECH and PROMIS software.

http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/012705_ptech_pt2.shtml

Why does Kane think that the USAF knew that terrorists were planning on hijacking planes and crashing them into buildings? Is this based on the extremely vague intercept that the NSA and perhaps the FBI got the day before?

Because "the FBI had built an antenna in the Indian Ocean devoted to listening to KSM’s calls."

Does Kane know that wargames are planned far in advanced or does he think they just put that one together at the last moment? Does he know that no exercises took place as NORAD found out about the hijackings before the exercises were scheduled to start? Does he know that no fighter assets were pulled away?

Kane doesn't say that the wargames were put together at the last moment. You seem have misread what Kane is saying by one hundred and eighty degrees.

Further reading for you ;) :

9/11 War Games No Coincidence by Michael Kane

http://911review.org/brad.com/batcave/WarGames.html

Your source is discredited. I don't care what he says about anything. I didn't read the other two articles because they are much longer and I don't have the time. But given your ability to pick them as based on Kane's piece of garbage, they are probably just as bad.

Ignorance is bliss. It always amazes me when "skeptics" accept the "evidence" of a few dodgy videos as the last word and feel no need to dig any deeper. It reminds of those handy tablets that Moses found up the mountain. Who cares who put them there?

[funk de fino]

Did someone really just link Paul Thompson? Oh noes.

Lost Child has slipped back into his usual posting style of links with italic headings and small quotes. I wondered how long it would be before the mask slipped.

[MikeW]

No, ugg, I didn't. Kane is a well known researcher.
Kane simply repeats Rupperts frauds, which you swallow because they're what you want to believe.

Example, from the top of your link:

I have an on-the-record statement from someone in NORAD that on the day of 9/11 The Joint Chiefs of Staff (Richard B. Myers) and NORAD were conducting a joint, live-fly, hijack Field Training Exercise (FTX) which involved at least one (and almost certainly many more) aircraft under US control that was posing as a hijacked airliner?.
Mike Ruppert - June 5, 2004, editor of FTW www.fromthewilderness.com
http://911review.org/brad.com/batcave/WarGames.html

This is the email, from NORAD's Don Arias, that I believe Ruppert is referring to:

The terms used for NORAD exercises have specific meanings. Per NORAD Instruction 33-7: “Nicknames: A combination of two separate unclassified words which is assigned an unclassified meaning and is employed for unclassified administration, morale or public information. The first word must begin with the combination of letters of the alphabet allocated to the using agency.” A nickname is used exclusively to designate a drill, or exercise. Exercise terms are used to prevent confusion between exercise directives with actual operations.”

Vigilant or Amalgam means it is a HQ NORAD sponsored exercise.
Guardian means it is a multi-command CPX, or command post exercise (no live-fly).

So on 9/11 NORAD was conducting a NORADwide, multicommand, command post exercise with no live-fly.

Other exercise terms include:
Warrior = JCS/HQ NORAD sponsored FTX, or field training exercise (live-fly)"
Crossing the Rubicon, Page 368

His "on the record" statement specifically says "no live fly" and makes no mention of hijackings. So how does Ruppert get to make his original claim?

He takes Richard Clarke's mention of a Vigilant Warrior exercise running on 9/11, assumes this is correct, and therefore there was a live-fly exercise.

He mentions the reports that NORAD had carried out hijacking exercises before.

Then he just assumes that they were running on 9/11, with no additional evidence whatsoever.

So, as per usual, impossible standards of proof are demanded for the "official story", while weak nonsense like this is regarded as a "substantial case". Even after all these years, the imbalance still surprises me.

[240-185]

All coins have at least three sides, unless you live in Flatland.

Have you ever played a "heads or tails" game?
It seems not.

[gumboot]

Jihad Jane,

What were these wargames? Be specific.

Regards,
Gumboot

[twinstead]

So, as per usual, impossible standards of proof are demanded for the "official story", while weak nonsense like this is regarded as a "substantial case". Even after all these years, the imbalance still surprises me.

This has always amazed me, too. "inside job" is declared on the slimmest of evidence, on rumors and heresay, yet a few real or imagined anomalies manage to somehow invalidate the entirety of the largest investigation in the nation's history--also known as the 'official story'.

[Brainache]

It's soooo much cooler to be a rebel. Who cares about facts and evidence when you can be way cooler if you just dismiss any and all information from official sources as "lies from The Man"?

[dtugg]

No, ugg, I didn't. Kane is a well known researcher.

Apparently, a well known researcher kind of how David Ray Griffin is a well known researcher. Either a liar, or has horrible research skills, or both.


It was Barbara Honegger Honegger, a former member of the Reagan administration, who first suggested that it was most logical to consider that "match" referred to the 911 war games

http://911review.org/Sept11Wiki/Honegger,Barbara.shtml

PTECH and PROMIS software.

http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/012705_ptech_pt2.shtml


Seeing as how Honegger bases her opionon on the totally incorrect idea that the USAF had exercises simulating hijacked airplanes crashing into buildings, one can only assume that her interpretation of "match" is wrong.


Because "the FBI had built an antenna in the Indian Ocean devoted to listening to KSM’s calls."

Two problems here. First is the assumption that the FBI passed their info to the USAF. Second is the huge, unsupported assumption that KSM would talk on the phone about the details of the operation. He is not stupid and I seriously doubt he would do that. He would have know that the United States was probably monitoring him. He may not have known about the FBI antenna, but he would have definitely known that it was likely the NSA was listening. It is said that they can monitor every electronic communication in the world.


Kane doesn't say that the wargames were put together at the last moment. You seem have misread what Kane is saying by one hundred and eighty degrees.

OK, I got it. He is saying that somehow KSM found out about some exercises. There is zero evidence of this except for somebody's misinterpretation of the word "match," based on info of nonexistent exercises. Furthermore, the USAF knew that the attacks were coming yet let these nonexistent exercises go underway for some insane reason. There is nothing whatsoever to base this on except for the fact that the FBI was listening to the phone calls from KSM and the huge, unsupported assumption that KSM was stupid enough to talk about the details of the attacks over the telephone when he would have known that at the very least, the NSA was listening to him. Got it. This is what you call research? Really?


Ignorance is bliss. It always amazes me when "skeptics" accept the "evidence" of a few dodgy videos as the last word and feel no need to dig any deeper. It reminds of those handy tablets that Moses found up the mountain. Who cares who put them there?

This is very funny, coming from you, Jane. We are actual skeptics. You are just a cynic who hates the US government and will use anything you find to attack it no matter if it's true or not.

[Brainster]

A bunch of the family members are protesting the Tribunal approach (http://www.aclu.org/safefree/detention/38038prs20081210.html):

We believe that the secretive and unconstitutional nature of these proceedings deprive us of the right to know the full truth about what happened on 9/11. These prosecutions have been politically motivated from the start, are designed to ensure quick convictions at the expense of due process and transparency, and are structured to prevent the revelation of abusive interrogations and torture engaged in by the U.S. government. Unfortunately, any verdict borne of these proceedings will lack legitimacy and leave us wondering if true justice has been served. No comfort or closure can come from military commissions that ignore the rule of law and stain America's reputation at home and abroad.

It's my impression looking down the list that a disproportionate percentage of the signers are at least "Truther"-friendly. McIlvaine, Van Auken, Casazza, Kleinberg and Gabrielle all appeared in 9-11 Press for Truth.

From my personal standpoint, I'd love to see KSM tried in the regular courts instead of a tribunal, because otherwise it will just be another thing for the Troofers to obsess about.

[PhantomWolf]

http://911review.org/Sept11Wiki/Honegger,Barbara.shtml

Gets two major things wrong in the first two paragraphs. A) 77 wasn't known about for 45 mins before it hit the Pentagon. The FAA only knew it was a hijack about 20 mins before and had no idea where it was, NORAD only got told 3 minutes before.

http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/012705_ptech_pt2.shtml

Again make a number of claims that aren't true, starting with the claim of an AI program. I have studied AI, it doesn't exist, it likely never will exist. We have programs that can simulate expertise well, but AI is still very far beyond us.

Secondly, the issues of the Phantom Flight 11 have been delt with, we even know exactly who it was that informed NEADS and why. If you want more info on that ask the guy responsible, Cheap Shot. We know that there were no dots addd to radar screens etc so the entire premise of the article is rubbish.

http://911review.org/brad.com/batcave/WarGames.html

Again make reference to wargames that have been shown to not have existed.

Ignorance is bliss. It always amazes me when "skeptics" accept the "evidence" of a few dodgy videos as the last word and feel no need to dig any deeper. It reminds of those handy tablets that Moses found up the mountain. Who cares who put them there?

It always amazes me that Truthers are still in 2003 and haven't managed to understand anything since then, but instead pointing to long debunked claims as if they are some sort of holy grail.

[Dave Rogers]

It was Barbara Honegger Honegger, a former member of the Reagan administration, who first suggested that it was most logical to consider that "match" referred to the 911 war games

Since Barbara Honegger is not a widely recognised authority on logical analysis, let's subject this inappropriate appeal to authority to a little deeper examination. First of all, we've got the original quote.


On September 10th there was a key NSA intercept between KSM and Mohammed Atta where KSM says “The Match is about to begin. Tomorrow (9/11) is zero hour.”



Let's assume for the sake of argument that this is reliably sourced. For a start, it seems unlikely that the text is a direct quote of the original message, because I suspect KSM would not be talking to Atta in English. Assuming, then, that this is a reasonably accurate translation, I can see an obvious interpretation for the statement: KSM's meaning is, "The suicide hijacking operation is cleared to proceed, and the date of execution is tomorrow."

So we have two possible interpretations, one of which is an order from KSM to Atta, the other of which is that KSM was giving information to Atta which Atta did not need in order to carry out the operation. Since the former could be seen as an operational necessity, whereas the latter would be an unnecessary security risk, for the moment I would tentatively conclude the former interpretation to be the more likely one.

Jane, would you care to advance a hypothesis as to why the latter interpretation should be considered the more likely?

Dave