Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

US to detain KSM indefinitely?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • US to detain KSM indefinitely?

    Opposition to U.S. trial likely to keep mastermind of 9/11 attacks in detention


    By Peter Finn and Anne E. Kornblut
    Washington Post Staff Writers
    Saturday, November 13, 2010; 12:38 AM

    Khalid Sheik Mohammed, the self-proclaimed mastermind of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, will probably remain in military detention without trial for the foreseeable future, according to Obama administration officials.
    *
    Obama aides near reversal on 9/11 trial


    The administration has concluded that it cannot put Mohammed on trial in federal court because of the opposition of lawmakers in Congress and in New York. There is also little internal support for resurrecting a military prosecution at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. The latter option would alienate liberal supporters.

    The administration asserts that it can hold Mohammed and other al-Qaeda operatives under the laws of war, a principle that has been upheld by the courts when Guantanamo Bay detainees have challenged their detention.

    The White House has made it clear that President Obama will ultimately make the decision, and a federal prosecution of Mohammed and four alleged co-conspirators has not been ruled out, senior officials said. Still, they acknowledge that a trial is unlikely to happen before the next presidential election and, even then, would require a different political environment.

    Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. said this week that a decision on a trial for Mohammed was close. Other administration officials said that his remark was simply a stock response to a frequently asked question and that it didn't signal that any announcement was imminent.

    After Holder spoke, Democratic Sen. Charles E. Schumer and Republican Rep. Peter King, both of New York, reiterated their opposition to a Sept. 11-related trial anywhere in New York state, as did the state's governor-elect, Andrew Cuomo. Lawmakers and officials in the state have cited concerns about a trial's cost as well as security issues.

    Administration officials think opposition would be as entrenched in Virginia and Pennsylvania, the other viable federal districts for a trial, given that deaths on Sept. 11 occurred at the Pentagon and on United Flight 93.

    Holder "says soon. Schumer says never. It's somewhere between the two," said a senior administration official who, like other officials, would discuss internal deliberations only on the condition of anonymity.
    ad_icon
    Click here!

    A Justice Department spokesman declined to comment.

    Mohammed was captured in Pakistan in March 2003 and was held at secret CIA prisons overseas until he was transferred in September 2006 to Guantanamo Bay. He is held there with a group of high-value detainees at a small, highly secure facility.

    The Bush administration first brought charges of capital murder and war crimes in February 2008 against the Pakistani national, who was raised in Kuwait. But the Obama administration suspended legal proceedings at Guantanamo Bay and in January 2010 withdrew military charges against Mohammed and four others in anticipation of a federal trial in Manhattan.

    The rest of the story here....
    Opposition to U.S. trial likely to keep mastermind of 9/11 attacks in detention


    I wonder, if this had been a Republican administration, how big of a story this would be.
    "They want to test our feelings.They want to know whether Muslims are extremists or not. Death to them and their newspapers."

    Protester

  • #2
    Personally I think if we are not going to put him on trial we should just drop him off at his home country.... from 20,000 feet, without a parachute.:maddest:
    Last edited by citanon; 15 Nov 10,, 02:31.

    Comment


    • #3
      Or put an homing device in his rear end and use him as target practice for a Predator..

      So this means Executive Order "shut down Guantanamo" is effectively dead?
      "They want to test our feelings.They want to know whether Muslims are extremists or not. Death to them and their newspapers."

      Protester

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by MIKEMUN View Post
        Or put an homing device in his rear end and use him as target practice for a Predator..

        So this means Executive Order "shut down Guantanamo" is effectively dead?
        Can't be. Obama warmed us all just a couple of years ago that things like Gitmo are terrible crimes and serve only to increase terrorist recruitment.

        -dale

        Comment


        • #5
          I think this is exactly perfect as an example of the muddle-headed 'thinking' one gets from liberals about almost everything, but with infinite emphasis on matters of national defense/national security. We have the added bonus of mixing it up with Constitutional questions (as in, why the eff should it matter one dam' bit what the public opposes and what they support re: administration of justice, which we were all assured that this was a matter of).

          This was all foreseen by everybody whose last names weren't Holder or Obama (or Sotoero, or whatever it is).

          Comment


          • #6
            Damn straight, my man.

            -dale

            Comment


            • #7
              Lawmakers and officials in the state have cited concerns about a trial's cost as well as security issues.
              Are these valid reasons ?

              Course not

              Comment


              • #8
                So here's my question - is Al Qaeda at war with the United States?
                "So little pains do the vulgar take in the investigation of truth, accepting readily the first story that comes to hand." Thucydides 1.20.3

                Comment


                • #9
                  Al Q is at war with all non-muslims.
                  "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." - John Adams

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    And yet ANOTHER unforced error is committed by this gang of incompetent buffoons that are in charge of keeping the country secure: the very thing we were supposed to have avoided by taking this monster to a full-up Constitutionally-clean, US-Citizen-guaranteed trial is now in stark relief: we're total hypocrites to the Rest Of The World now, because these idiots had FIRST agreed to the totally-indefensible position that without said trial, justice simply could not be served, and it was slam-dunk no-lose thang, which of course made all the rest of us wonder just HOW is THAT a 'fair' trial?

                    They scrood the pewch BIG TIME, and it was all totally forseen. This was exactly the worst possible outcome we could have had, and they blundered into it WHILE BEING TOLD how their Big Master Plan was going to fail.

                    There is simply no excuse for this. And one is forced to wonder if it isn't deliberate at some level.

                    Unless your name is 'roosveltrepublican', I mean. In THAT case, you're not likely to have any notion at all that anything is wrong with the God-King's decision on this matter.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Bluesman View Post
                      There is simply no excuse for this. And one is forced to wonder if it isn't deliberate at some level.
                      Goiing by the article it is, idea appears to be to put the trial off till after the next general election.

                      What I don't understand is why ?

                      But if the jury comes back with a not-guilty verdict, officials said, it would be the death knell for any further federal prosecutions of Guantanamo detainees.
                      They're afraid he will be found not guilty. WHAT
                      Last edited by Double Edge; 15 Nov 10,, 21:47.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Double Edge View Post
                        Goiing by the article it is, idea appears to be to put the trial off till after the next general election.

                        What I don't understand is why ?
                        Because Obama and Holder honestly believe that it should be done here in the U.S. but now are beginning to understand that a large portion of Americans hate the idea, so they will put it off until what they hope will be Obama's second term.

                        -dale

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Ok, so why do the people not like the idea of trying KSM in the US ?

                          Why is there public opposition to this trial ?

                          Where else are crimes committed in the US supposed to be tried ?

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Double Edge View Post
                            Ok, so why do the people not like the idea of trying KSM in the US ?

                            Why is there public opposition to this trial ?

                            Where else are crimes committed in the US supposed to be tried ?
                            It was an act of war by a person not a formal member of a formal military (i.e. enemy combatant), not a criminal act. Because of this, the structure of the application of justice and burdens of proof are different than civilian court; i.e. we can convict him easier and without revealing as many sources and methods. Plus we can do it outside of the U.S. proper so no jihadi strikes can use that as a focus.

                            Most Americans realize, understand, and support this. But Obama and his fellows are not most Americans.

                            -dale
                            Last edited by dalem; 15 Nov 10,, 22:44.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by dalem View Post
                              It was an act of war by a person not a formal member of a formal military (i.e. enemy combatant), not a criminal act. Because of this, the structure of the application of justice and burdens of proof are different than civilian court; i.e. we can convict him easier and without revealing as many sources and methods. Plus we can do it outside of the U.S. proper so no jihadi strikes can use that as a focus.
                              Wait a minute, did you just mention the reasons NOT to try him in a civil court in the US

                              So why can't you try him in a military court in the US instead ? since an act of war would presumably not be tried in a civl court where you would not have to reveal sources etc.

                              Originally posted by dalem View Post
                              Most Americans realize, understand, and support this.
                              They fear KSM will not be convicted if he's tried in the US ?

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X