Reuters: KSM, four others to face Gitmo trials

[Teller]

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/04/04/us-usa-guatanamo-mohammed-conspirators-idUSTRE73344520110404

Saw this on the Nightly News tonight. This blurb doesn't say much, but it was tough to find one that could be discussed without one side or the other calling "source."

(Reuters) - Four alleged co-conspirators of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed' date=' the self-professed mastermind of the September 11, 2001 attacks, will also be tried by a military commission at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba, a U.S. official told Reuters.

The others are Walid bin Attash, Ramzi Binalshibh, Ali Abdul Aziz Ali and Mustafa Ahmed al Hawsawi, the official said, speaking on condition of anonymity.

While I agree with the decision, it's further evidence that "hopey, changey" means more of the "samey."

[The Evil Genius]

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/04/04/us-usa-guatanamo-mohammed-conspirators-idUSTRE73344520110404

Saw this on the Nightly News tonight. This blurb doesn't say much, but it was tough to find one that could be discussed without one side or the other calling "source."

While I agree with the decision, it's further evidence that "hopey, changey" means more of the "samey."

From another article,

The Obama administration abandoned plans to try Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in a US court, amid fierce opposition.

President Obama recently lifted a freeze on new military terror trials.

He accused the US Congress of harming national security by opposing his plan to close the controversial Cuban prison and try some terror suspects in US civilian courts.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-12964588

Appears to me that Obama wanted a public trial and abandoned it when the opposition in Congress became too much to overcome.

[AsburySkinsFan]

Obama also keeps calling the place where he lives the "White House"...sheesh more evidence of the lack of hope and change! While I would love to see Gitmo closed forever and to see each of those rightly held there tried and sentenced for their crimes, I'm afraid that the Right won the public debate and scared the daylights out of people with the potential of these terrorists being housed in Federal penitentiaries beside mass murderers, serial killers, and domestic terrorists.

[Teller]

Obama also keeps calling the place where he lives the "White House"...sheesh more evidence of the lack of hope and change! While I would love to see Gitmo closed forever and to see each of those rightly held there tried and sentenced for their crimes, I'm afraid that the Right won the public debate and scared the daylights out of people with the potential of these terrorists being housed in Federal penitentiaries beside mass murderers, serial killers, and domestic terrorists.

If you mean the stranglehold "the right" had on Congress, then yes, you're exactly right. lol.

They deserve one of two outcomes. Military tribunals, or the use of the clause in the Geneva Conventions that allows for the holding of detainees until "the end of hostilities."

I just shudder to think of the effect that this will have on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan. Under Bush, Gitmo was an alleged rallying cry for the enemy over there. Maybe THAT has changed.

[Larry]

Me, I really don't care about the location where they're held or tried.

What I've always had a problem with was the concept that "well, if we do it here, then the laws and the Constitution don't apply".

But for me, the only reason to move them someplace else is political/symbolic.

Give 'em a court appointed lawyer, a fair trial, and a right good hangin'. [/movie reference]

[Teller]

Me, I really don't care about the location where they're held or tried.

What I've always had a problem with was the concept that "well, if we do it here, then the laws and the Constitution don't apply".

But for me, the only reason to move them someplace else is political/symbolic.

Give 'em a court appointed lawyer, a fair trial, and a right good hangin'. [/movie reference]

I think we're probably on the same page here, for the most part, Larry. And I admit, this is NOT my area of expertise, but haven't enemy prisoners of war always been subject to military tribunals, or taken to the Hague after the fact? Have we ever brought alleged war criminals to the US for trial? (Not accusing, just asking.) I'd say tribunals, or again, hold them until it's over. Course, an undefined enemy, undefined goals, and no enemy nation to sign a peace treaty, makes that significantly more difficult.

Frankly, I think another Geneva Convention is needed ASAP, to figure out how to deal with the new, non-nation-state threats we face.

[TheGoodBits]

You guys keep pretending Obama can wave a wand and he'll have his way. He's being smart. Whatever good would come out of closing Gitmo would not be worth the fight it would take to achieve it. He's got a limited amount of "political capital" just like every other leader and he's got to use it wisely. Also, with the 2012 election looming, he'll do best to appear as centrist as possible.

[AsburySkinsFan]

If you mean the stranglehold "the right" had on Congress, then yes, you're exactly right. lol.

That's not what I mean and you know it, the Right won the political debate because they spread fear all over the country which led to opposition to the transfer of those prisoners to stateside prisons and US trials.

They deserve one of two outcomes. Military tribunals, or the use of the clause in the Geneva Conventions that allows for the holding of detainees until "the end of hostilities."

I'm ok with those, I'd like to see the tribunal results made public without 90% redaction in the transcription, the indefinite holding of prisoners in Gitmo which seemed to be the Bush plan at least at first was very disturbing, combined with the fact that they were brought to US soil.

I just shudder to think of the effect that this will have on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan. Under Bush, Gitmo was an alleged rallying cry for the enemy over there. Maybe THAT has changed.

I don't think much has changed in their view to Gitmo, which is why I believe it needs to be closed.

---------- Post added April-4th-2011 at 07:36 PM ----------

BTW, I like the idea of taking them to the Hague on war crimes charges.

[Larry]

Frankly, I think another Geneva Convention is needed ASAP, to figure out how to deal with the new, non-nation-state threats we face.

OT, but some time ago, when I was digging to find a copy of the Geneva Conventions, I came across this page, which is the commentary published by the people who actually wrote the Geneva Conventions. And the last paragraph in this document really stuck in my mind, when I saw it. (It's why I bookmarked the page.)

In short, all the particular cases we have just been considering confirm a general principle which is embodied in all four Geneva Conventions of 1949. Every person in enemy hands must have some status under international law: he is either a prisoner of war and, as such, covered by the Third Convention, a civilian covered by the Fourth Convention, or again, a member of the medical personnel of the armed forces who is covered by the First Convention. ' There is no ' intermediate status; nobody in enemy hands can be outside the law. We feel that that is a satisfactory solution -- not only satisfying to the mind, but also, and above all, satisfactory from the humanitarian point of view.

According to the people who wrote the Geneva Conventions, the folks at Gitmo (and elsewhere) are already covered by the Geneva Conventions, and always have been.

[Teller]

That's not what I mean and you know it, the Right won the political debate because they spread fear all over the country which led to opposition to the transfer of those prisoners to stateside prisons and US trials.

I disagree, with all respect. You don't have to "scare" me to convince me that abandoning the Geneva Convention, bringing suspected terrorists to U.S. soil, and applying U.S. Constitutional law to their cases is a bad idea. If the GOP did a better job of controlling the political debate on the issue, so be it. I think that's a weakness the democrats have had since Clinton. But while I may be reading too much into what you're saying, IMO, this wasn't a matter of the GOP making stuff up to scare people into a position they wouldn't normally hold.

I'm ok with those, I'd like to see the tribunal results made public without 90% redaction in the transcription, the indefinite holding of prisoners in Gitmo which seemed to be the Bush plan at least at first was very disturbing, combined with the fact that they were brought to US soil.

Is there precedent for that, or a provable need? Again, asking, not accusing.

I don't think much has changed in their view to Gitmo, which is why I believe it needs to be closed.

I respect the reasoning behind your position. I really do. I just think it's impractical. Where do we put them? Do we bring everyone we capture to the U.S. and hold them in the mountains of WV? And I'm sure if you don't support Gitmo, you don't support rendition. (Correct me if I'm wrong.) I just don't see that the way we've always done things has had any serious repercussions. If that's the case, why change it?

BTW, I like the idea of taking them to the Hague on war crimes charges.

I'll take any nugget of agreement I can get on a tough issue like this.

---------- Post added April-4th-2011 at 07:47 PM ----------

According to the people who wrote the Geneva Conventions, the folks at Gitmo (and elsewhere) are already covered by the Geneva Conventions, and always have been.

I can appreciate that, and agree with it. Thanks for citing it.

I guess if you want to get technical though, 99% of the people we're fighting right now are war criminals. They don't wear an easily identifiable uniform and fight on behalf of a state, per se. But since this is the route combat is likely to take for the foreseeable future (as there are only a handful of militaries that can stand toe-to-toe with us) I think we need a new, or amended, set of rules governing combat as it is conducted in the 21st century.

[Larry]

I guess if you want to get technical though, 99% of the people we're fighting right now are war criminals. They don't wear an easily identifiable uniform and fight on behalf of a state, per se. But since this is the route combat is likely to take for the foreseeable future (as there are only a handful of militaries that can stand toe-to-toe with us) I think we need a new, or amended, set of rules governing combat as it is conducted in the 21st century.

Oh, I don't think there's anything technical about it. Terrorists are war criminals.

Problem is that according to things like the Geneva Conventions, so are we. (Makes it tough for us to turn the prisoners over to the UN or some such, for trial.)

----------

I think we're moving in the right direction.

Write clear instructions. Establish rules. Tell the people what the rules are. Follow them.

After that, it's just haggling over what the rules ought to be.

----------

Although, when we get to the subject of torture, I've been reading a lot of authors in my Ethics class who I think have a point that I hadn't considered.

They claim that we shouldn't have any rules about torture. That we shouldn't, for example, try to exactly define it.

Their reasoning is that if you establish clear rules, if you, say, create a rule that says that holding somebody under water for two minutes is torture, then you in effect declare that holding somebody under water for one minute and 59 seconds is completely legal. Similarly, if you attempt to create a set of rules that define when torture is permissible, then you invite people to attempt to be creative in claiming that this particular circumstance falls under this standard or that one.

They argue that the most moral, and the most practical, position on torture is for the law to declare that it's always illegal, all the time. And that if a "ticking time bomb scenario" occurs, then the person on the spot will ask himself if his need is great enough that he's willing to break the law, and take the consequences.

Frankly, I'm starting to lean towards that view, that it should be illegal all the time. I'm looking at all of the "creep" that's gone on, for example, in our own laws and in government powers. I see how many times people have tried, and succeeded in getting around the Fourth Amendment, because it prohibits "unreasonable search and seizure", by people who want to try to redefine "unreasonable".

Or I look at the UN Convention against Torture, which defines torture as:

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. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.

and John Woo's "torture memo", which basically said "well, that treaty has the word 'severe' in it, and we can define 'severe' in any way we want. So, we can claim that soaking somebody in gasoline and setting them on fire is severe, therefore setting somebody's legs on fire isn't as bad, therefore it isn't torture."

In short, I can certainly see the reasoning that any attempt to define and prohibit torture might well lead to actually legitimizing anything which in any way differs from the prohibition.

[TimmySmith]

Appears to me that Obama wanted a public trial and abandoned it when the opposition in Congress became too much to overcome.

Appears to me that he probably should have done it when he had no opposition in Congress.

(he was never going to do it)