Khalid Sheik Mohammed
The Obama administration released a trial (no pun intended) balloon over the weekend, leaking that it was thinking of shelving plans to bring Khalid Sheik Mohammed and the other alleged 9/11 conspirators to trial.
Instead the administration is apparently considering holding KSM and other GTMO detainees indefinitely as Prisoners of War. Far from closing GTMO, the new Obama plan seems to be to institutionalize it as part of the national landscape.
If GTMO becomes a permanent feature of America’s counter-terrorism architecture it is inevitable that sooner or later new detainees will be sent there. Federal agents and intelligence officials faced with a hard case or sensitive sources to protect will opt for indefinite detention over prosecution. More mistakes are going to be made.
Indeed, given the amount of flip-flopping we have seen from the White House on this issue, I am beginning to wonder how long it will be before the Presidential ban on coercive interrogation is lifted in the spirit of bipartisanship.
In June 2009 Attorney General Eric Holder met with 9/11 families and told them that he was personally committed to bringing the perpetrators to trial in open, transparent courts. This was the only way forward if the administration was to rehabilitate America’s damaged reputation on the world stage.
Now it seems that the Attorney General’s commitment to fair and open trials is to be sacrificed on the altar of political expediency, and the Democrats wonder why so many of the people who voted for President Obama in 2008 stayed home for the midterms.
If KSM and his cohorts are held as Prisoners of War they will never be brought to account for their actions and the United States will tacitly be treating the 9/11 attacks as an act of war.
By any legal standard the 9/11 attacks were no such thing. Under US criminal law they were an act of unparalleled mass murder, under international criminal law they could amount to a crime against humanity. Acts of such appalling brutality cannot be allowed to go unpunished.
The families of the victims of 9/11 are entitled to their day in court. They are entitled to learn about the 9/11 plot in forensic detail. They are entitled to see justice done and have confidence in the court’s decision. They are entitled to closure.
If the Obama administration insists on treating KSM as a warrior, and not as a criminal defendant, the victims of 9/11 will be denied these things. Furthermore, if the War on Terror ever ends, KSM can, in theory, walk out of GTMO a free man without a stain of his character.
The Obama administration refers to KSM and the other GTMO detainees as “legacy cases” as if this somehow absolves them from any responsibility to clean up the mess they have been bequeathed. President Obama was elected to fix this mess not put it off for the next incumbent to wrestle with.
There has only ever been one way to close Guantanamo: prosecute those you can and release those you can’t. The legacy of mistreatment from the Bush administration presents a real hurdle to judicial prosecutions, but not an insurmountable one.
Hard work and the careful assembly of untainted evidence should enable the construction of effective cases, even where abuses have occurred. But why bother when you can just lock people up indefinitely without the need to justify your actions?
Sadly, it seems the only change that the Obama administration is bringing to US national security policy is a determination not to repeat the mistakes of its predecessor, by committing an entirely new set of mistakes all of its own.
Call it facing facts, evolving and on-the-job training – not "in the spirit of bipartisanship".
Whether you face it or not, the attacks on 9-11 were an act of war. That "Executive Order" closing GTMO signed by Mr. Naivete…. was never worth the paper it was written on. At the time I was surprised at even his naivete, but as time passes I believe even he had to have known better and it was just an act to appease a percentage of his deranged base. I knew then what I still know now… The best and legal way of dealing with these terrorists are through Commissions – just as drafted several years ago. Change the name, rewrite and tweak a couple words here and there… and voila. Obama saves some face (not much) – and KSM never walks a free man or given center stage in a U.S. Federal Court.
I'm glad you aren't in a position of authority Mr. Parker.
Good day, and I hope you'll find a new hobby… this one is just going to turn you into a very angry disgruntled bitter old man. KSM ain't worth it.
Call it facing facts, evolving and on-the-job training – not “in the spirit of bipartisanship”.
Whether you face it or not, the attacks on 9-11 were an act of war. That “Executive Order” closing GTMO signed by Mr. Naivete…. was never worth the paper it was written on. At the time I was surprised at even his naivete, but as time passes I believe even he had to have known better and it was just an act to appease a percentage of his deranged base. I knew then what I still know now… The best and legal way of dealing with these terrorists are through Commissions – just as drafted several years ago. Change the name, rewrite and tweak a couple words here and there… and voila. Obama saves some face (not much) – and KSM never walks a free man or given center stage in a U.S. Federal Court.
I’m glad you aren’t in a position of authority Mr. Parker.
Good day, and I hope you’ll find a new hobby… this one is just going to turn you into a very angry disgruntled bitter old man. KSM ain’t worth it.
Gitmo is illegal. The detainees have been denied constitutionally protected rights. You cannot defend suspending someone's rights for any reason whatsoever, including the suspicion they might have been engaged in terrorist activities. They need to go through the legal process the Constitution has allowed them. Let them be officially charged, sent to trial, and the legal decision made that they are or aren't terrorists. Until they are proven to be terrorists, they are innocent. It is simple, it is clear. The Constitution is not ambiguous on the matter. They are due certain rights, Gitmo is depriving them of those rights. And anyone who is willing to subvert the Constitution for any reason doesn't value it whatsoever. We must live in adherance to the letter of our Constitution or else it is an absolutely worthless document.
You're completely right, Anna.
Gitmo is illegal. The detainees have been denied constitutionally protected rights. You cannot defend suspending someone’s rights for any reason whatsoever, including the suspicion they might have been engaged in terrorist activities. They need to go through the legal process the Constitution has allowed them. Let them be officially charged, sent to trial, and the legal decision made that they are or aren’t terrorists. Until they are proven to be terrorists, they are innocent. It is simple, it is clear. The Constitution is not ambiguous on the matter. They are due certain rights, Gitmo is depriving them of those rights. And anyone who is willing to subvert the Constitution for any reason doesn’t value it whatsoever. We must live in adherance to the letter of our Constitution or else it is an absolutely worthless document.
You’re completely right, Anna.
There is nothing "un-Constitutional" about the Military Commission process. Nor is it un-Constituitonal to detain enemy combatants w/or without a federal trial.
Infact, for the first time in the history of Armed Conflict (thanks to a 5 to 4 ruling/interpretation by the Supreme Court), the detainees do have Habeas Corpus.
But please explain what part of the Constitution is violated by detaining unlawful enemy combatants during a period of armed conflict? What part of the Constitution gurantees every terrorist captured abroad a Federal Trial?
Please explain you Constitutional Scholars?
And if you want to argue KSM (for example) is not an enemy combatant… you will be on the wrong side of facts and the wrong side of law.
The detainees still being held are not there because of alleged criminal conduct but because they fought against U.S. and Coalition forces. If released they would likely rejoin the JIHAD. KSM for example has clearly admitted this. Nothing un-Constitutional about detaining them.
But if it makes you feel better…. by all means keep writing your letters, keep pestering the Commander-In-Chief, keep firing up the blogs, yell at your elected officials, the Attorney General, the Media, etc…
But just as I suggested to Mr. Parker, you are wasting your time. You may as well be trying to argue the Universal Law of Gravity with Sir Isaac Newton.
These people need a trial! 9/11 was horrifying, but Guantanamo is a disgrace to the US. Punishment without trial should not under any circumstance take place in a civilized society. How many of these men are innocent? How many are terrorists? How are they treated?
There is nothing “un-Constitutional” about the Military Commission process. Nor is it un-Constituitonal to detain enemy combatants w/or without a federal trial.
Infact, for the first time in the history of Armed Conflict (thanks to a 5 to 4 ruling/interpretation by the Supreme Court), the detainees do have Habeas Corpus.
But please explain what part of the Constitution is violated by detaining unlawful enemy combatants during a period of armed conflict? What part of the Constitution gurantees every terrorist captured abroad a Federal Trial?
Please explain you Constitutional Scholars?
And if you want to argue KSM (for example) is not an enemy combatant… you will be on the wrong side of facts and the wrong side of law.
The detainees still being held are not there because of alleged criminal conduct but because they fought against U.S. and Coalition forces. If released they would likely rejoin the JIHAD. KSM for example has clearly admitted this. Nothing un-Constitutional about detaining them.
But if it makes you feel better…. by all means keep writing your letters, keep pestering the Commander-In-Chief, keep firing up the blogs, yell at your elected officials, the Attorney General, the Media, etc…
But just as I suggested to Mr. Parker, you are wasting your time. You may as well be trying to argue the Universal Law of Gravity with Sir Isaac Newton.
These people need a trial! 9/11 was horrifying, but Guantanamo is a disgrace to the US. Punishment without trial should not under any circumstance take place in a civilized society. How many of these men are innocent? How many are terrorists? How are they treated?
The detention of enemy combatants and "punishment without trial" are NOT synonymous. Once you understand you will have a clearer picture of the law, and this issue in particular.
Still waiting for the Consititutional Scholars to educate me on what part prohibits the detention of enemy combatants during armed conflict???
The detention of enemy combatants and “punishment without trial” are NOT synonymous. Once you understand you will have a clearer picture of the law, and this issue in particular.
Still waiting for the Consititutional Scholars to educate me on what part prohibits the detention of enemy combatants during armed conflict???
Messers Brian & Allen….
KSM is in Guantanamo because he FOUGHT US / COALITION FORCES ??
Really ???
Then he shouldn't be tried at all ….. but held as a POW…. .
If he's there for 9/11, however, he could be tried ….. but not in a military court.
History shows us what military courts actually do.
Hitler brought in military courts in place of Germany's existing civil courts … precisely to deal with "special crises" ….. the Reds …. ……. the Jews ……the gays ……. the Gypsies …..
These "crises" ….. made up of targetted minorities deemed to be threats to the country & its system ….. didn't prove to be temporary, however.
They became permanent, & stayed on ……
& were then used to crush anyone who dissented or differed … or was in your way in any way .
The "War on Terror" is such a permanent fixture ……. declared by your leaders to be indefinite ….. permanent ……
& it's no coincidence that this "War" has been used to push through "special laws" that enable spying on …… & curbing the rights of ….. your own rather than those of "aliens" alone.
The special laws against "terrorists" are now used against all dissenters & minorities deemed undesirable ….. Muslims ….. illegal immgrants …… antiwar groups …….. antinuclear activists ……… radical environmentalists ….. animals rights people ….
The Hitlerization of America …. always a reality for darkskinned minorities …… is the chicken now come home to roost for all.
& some of its cutting edges are the military courts of the gulag of Guantanamo.
Trying to equate Hitler with the Military Commissions and GITMO? Really? Those detainees in GITMO have nothing in common other than being "victims" for being Muslim? Really? There are billions of Muslims in the world and what… I'm not sure 130 held at GITMO? How did the other 99.999999999999% end up so lucky?
Our leaders didn't declare the war, we RESPONDED to an act of war.
You can't honestly believe the words you type.
This Nation elected a dark-skinned minority. You don't know squadoosh Silly rabbit and have brought absolutely ZERO to the debate.
"Watch out animal rights people! Your next… USA wants to lock you away… just look what they did to those poor radical jihadist terrorists! Your next PETA and Code Pink"! A. Savage says so. Ohhh Thanks I needed that.
Messers Brian & Allen….
KSM is in Guantanamo because he FOUGHT US / COALITION FORCES ??
Really ???
Then he shouldn’t be tried at all ….. but held as a POW…. .
If he’s there for 9/11, however, he could be tried ….. but not in a military court.
History shows us what military courts actually do.
Hitler brought in military courts in place of Germany’s existing civil courts … precisely to deal with “special crises” ….. the Reds …. ……. the Jews ……the gays ……. the Gypsies …..
These “crises” ….. made up of targetted minorities deemed to be threats to the country & its system ….. didn’t prove to be temporary, however.
They became permanent, & stayed on ……
& were then used to crush anyone who dissented or differed … or was in your way in any way .
The “War on Terror” is such a permanent fixture ……. declared by your leaders to be indefinite ….. permanent ……
& it’s no coincidence that this “War” has been used to push through “special laws” that enable spying on …… & curbing the rights of ….. your own rather than those of “aliens” alone.
The special laws against “terrorists” are now used against all dissenters & minorities deemed undesirable ….. Muslims ….. illegal immgrants …… antiwar groups …….. antinuclear activists ……… radical environmentalists ….. animals rights people ….
The Hitlerization of America …. always a reality for darkskinned minorities …… is the chicken now come home to roost for all.
& some of its cutting edges are the military courts of the gulag of Guantanamo.
1) "dark-skinned minority" ?????
wtf dude.
Could the board moderator please kindly delete the above racist post from this board.
2) Savage, (other than your over reliance on the CAPS LOCK button ) you are a valued and civilized contributor to the debates here. My special personal request is for more of your original poetry.
Trying to equate Hitler with the Military Commissions and GITMO? Really? Those detainees in GITMO have nothing in common other than being “victims” for being Muslim? Really? There are billions of Muslims in the world and what… I’m not sure 130 held at GITMO? How did the other 99.999999999999% end up so lucky?
Our leaders didn’t declare the war, we RESPONDED to an act of war.
You can’t honestly believe the words you type.
This Nation elected a dark-skinned minority. You don’t know squadoosh Silly rabbit and have brought absolutely ZERO to the debate.
“Watch out animal rights people! Your next… USA wants to lock you away… just look what they did to those poor radical jihadist terrorists! Your next PETA and Code Pink”! A. Savage says so. Ohhh Thanks I needed that.
1) “dark-skinned minority” ?????
wtf dude.
Could the board moderator please kindly delete the above racist post from this board.
2) Savage, (other than your over reliance on the CAPS LOCK button ) you are a valued and civilized contributor to the debates here. My special personal request is for more of your original poetry.
Your friend A. Savage accused “The Hitlerization of America …. always a reality for DARKSKINNED MINORITIES”
I was merely repeating HIS words to argue how ridiculous that accusation was. The most free Nation on earth when it comes to religion and religious tolerance. Get a grip and don’t try to turn my words into something they are not.
Helpful reading for all of us:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacies
Helpful reading for all of us:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacies
Helpful reading for all of us:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacies
Helpful reading for all of us:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacies
look up "false premise" as well ladies and gentlemen.
look up “false premise” as well ladies and gentlemen.
Jan. 2010:
Q The administration this week announced that it was going to temporarily, at least — or for the time being — suspend the transfer of detainees from Guantanamo Bay to Yemen. You did transfer six in December. Are you — do you know where those six are?
MR. GIBBS: I’m not going to get into — I think Christi asked these questions the other day, and I’m not going to get into discussing transfers.
Q Well — okay. Given the need to talk to Congress and get them onboard with the transfer of prisoners to the Thomson correctional center, you need to convert that prison from a maximum-security prison to a supermax. Do you have any realistic time table as to when you think Guantanamo can actually be closed?
MR. GIBBS: I think Christi also asked that question. I didn’t have a time table answer. Obviously we’ll work with Congress in the upcoming session on many of the things that you talked about — not just retrofitting, but purchasing a prison in Thomson, as well as other issues relating to the movement of prisoners from Guantanamo to Thomson.
Nov. 2010:
White House spokesman Robert Gibbs echoed President Obama's pledge to close the Guantanamo Bay prison camp, despite a prominent Democrat's suggestion to consider holding civilian trials of suspected terrorists there.
Gibbs could not put a time frame on the closure of Gitmo, something Obama had pledged to do his first year in office.
"I'm willing to commit to closing it as soon as possible," Gibbs said today. "I think I said last week that no one expects this to be easy. But I know that the president has not and will not give up on the goal."
Gibbs responded to a question about comments by House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md., who said the administration could hold military or civilian trials at Gitmo.
The Obama administration and its critics have clashed for more than a year over how to try terrorist suspects held at Gitmo, particularly accused 9/11 plotter Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.
A year ago, the administration proposed a civilian trial of KSM in New York City, but that plan is in limbo amid heavy political opposition.
The administration has had trouble getting other countries to take some of the 174 prisoners being held at Guantanamo Bay.
Speaking Sunday on CBS' Face The Nation, Hoyer said, "I think under the Constitution, we could clearly impanel a Title III (civilian) court to dispose of these cases in a proper way in Guantanamo itself."
"Juries, as you know, are sequestered in many cases," Hoyer said. "So it wouldn't be much different. And it's a Caribbean island. It's not like you're sending them to an archipelago or Siberia."
Hoyer noted that once the Republicans take control of the U.S. House, it is likely they could block U.S.-based civilian trials of KSM and other terrorism defendants: "Bringing them to the United States given the current concerns and makeup of the Congress, probably not going to happen."
The administration isn't opposed to military trials. But Gibbs said terrorists use the Guantanamo Bay prison as a "recruiting tool," and the Obama administration wants to close it.
"We're not giving up on that goal," Gibbs said
GOOD TO SEE PRES. OBAMA'S INTENTION HAS NOT CHANGED!
THE CLOSING CAN'T HAPPEN TOO SOON FOR ME!
Jan. 2010:
Q The administration this week announced that it was going to temporarily, at least — or for the time being — suspend the transfer of detainees from Guantanamo Bay to Yemen. You did transfer six in December. Are you — do you know where those six are?
MR. GIBBS: I’m not going to get into — I think Christi asked these questions the other day, and I’m not going to get into discussing transfers.
Q Well — okay. Given the need to talk to Congress and get them onboard with the transfer of prisoners to the Thomson correctional center, you need to convert that prison from a maximum-security prison to a supermax. Do you have any realistic time table as to when you think Guantanamo can actually be closed?
MR. GIBBS: I think Christi also asked that question. I didn’t have a time table answer. Obviously we’ll work with Congress in the upcoming session on many of the things that you talked about — not just retrofitting, but purchasing a prison in Thomson, as well as other issues relating to the movement of prisoners from Guantanamo to Thomson.
Nov. 2010:
White House spokesman Robert Gibbs echoed President Obama’s pledge to close the Guantanamo Bay prison camp, despite a prominent Democrat’s suggestion to consider holding civilian trials of suspected terrorists there.
Gibbs could not put a time frame on the closure of Gitmo, something Obama had pledged to do his first year in office.
“I’m willing to commit to closing it as soon as possible,” Gibbs said today. “I think I said last week that no one expects this to be easy. But I know that the president has not and will not give up on the goal.”
Gibbs responded to a question about comments by House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md., who said the administration could hold military or civilian trials at Gitmo.
The Obama administration and its critics have clashed for more than a year over how to try terrorist suspects held at Gitmo, particularly accused 9/11 plotter Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.
A year ago, the administration proposed a civilian trial of KSM in New York City, but that plan is in limbo amid heavy political opposition.
The administration has had trouble getting other countries to take some of the 174 prisoners being held at Guantanamo Bay.
Speaking Sunday on CBS’ Face The Nation, Hoyer said, “I think under the Constitution, we could clearly impanel a Title III (civilian) court to dispose of these cases in a proper way in Guantanamo itself.”
“Juries, as you know, are sequestered in many cases,” Hoyer said. “So it wouldn’t be much different. And it’s a Caribbean island. It’s not like you’re sending them to an archipelago or Siberia.”
Hoyer noted that once the Republicans take control of the U.S. House, it is likely they could block U.S.-based civilian trials of KSM and other terrorism defendants: “Bringing them to the United States given the current concerns and makeup of the Congress, probably not going to happen.”
The administration isn’t opposed to military trials. But Gibbs said terrorists use the Guantanamo Bay prison as a “recruiting tool,” and the Obama administration wants to close it.
“We’re not giving up on that goal,” Gibbs said
GOOD TO SEE PRES. OBAMA’S INTENTION HAS NOT CHANGED!
THE CLOSING CAN’T HAPPEN TOO SOON FOR ME!