Executing 9/11 conspirators

2012-05-07 20:55:42

#1

Macbeth: Banned; +2,444|5825

Lawyers for five men charged before a military commission with conspiring in the attacks of Sept. 11 complained on Sunday that the process was rigged to lead to the execution of their clients, and they offered new details and explanations for a sometimes chaotic daylong arraignment on Saturday.

Throughout the arraignment, Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and the other four defendants refused to talk to, or even listen to, the judge. Several delayed the hearing by praying, and one shouted to the judge that guards at the prison might kill them. Another was brought to the court in restraints and later took off his shirt, before insisting that the full charges be read aloud, which lasted into the night.

So the guys who planned the 9/11 attacks are all on trial in our base in Cuba. Do you think they should all be executed when they are inevitably found guilty or do you think we as a responsible civilized country should not execute them despite how barbaric their crimes were?

Last edited by Macbeth (2012-05-07 20:56:47)

2012-05-07 21:18:43

#2

Spark: liquid fluoride thorium reactor; +874|6914|Canberra, AUS

What does the law say?

The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
^{~ Richard Feynman}

2012-05-07 21:21:23

#3

Macbeth: Banned; +2,444|5825

They are in the military court system and tried with several thousand murders. So they all open to being executed I am sure.

2012-05-07 21:23:12

#4

Superior Mind: (not macbeth); +1,755|6932

Death or life in prison both have pros and cons. If they die now, they are happy- at least until the moment of death. If they grow old in jail they might realize their sins and find true peace with Allah. Then they still die at peace. Is there a civilized equivalent to execution?

x

2012-05-07 21:28:25

#5

Spark: liquid fluoride thorium reactor; +874|6914|Canberra, AUS

Macbeth wrote:
They are in the military court system and tried with several thousand murders. So they all open to being executed I am sure.

Then give them the jab, don't see why their case should be treated non-equivalently to comparable others.

The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
^{~ Richard Feynman}

2012-05-08 01:24:29

#6

Dilbert_X: The X stands for; +1,815|6345|eXtreme to the maX

Yup, and Staff Sgt Bales should be handed over to the Afghans to be tried and sentenced as they see fit.

Fuck Israel

2012-05-08 03:48:13

#7

FEOS: Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate; +1,182|6650|'Murka

While I agree Bales' alleged crimes were heinous (he still has to be tried, btw), there are agreements in place with the GoA regarding extradition. Not sure that's the case with the accused 9/11 conspirators.

“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular

2012-05-08 03:53:06

#8

Dilbert_X: The X stands for; +1,815|6345|eXtreme to the maX

There was no agreement in place with with the GoA regarding extradition of Bin Laden.

Practice what you preach and hand Bales over to the Afghans.

Not that any of the 9/11 conspirators were exactly legally extradited in the first place....

Fuck Israel

2012-05-08 04:15:15

#9

AussieReaper: ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°); +5,761|6392|what

Think Bales should be tried in a military court system?

2012-05-08 04:30:55

#10

Dilbert_X: The X stands for; +1,815|6345|eXtreme to the maX

He committed crimes against Afghans, let the Afghans try him.

Fuck Israel

2012-05-08 05:30:17

#11

Superior Mind: (not macbeth); +1,755|6932

Lol dilbert. Will you please join the Mujahadeen already?

x

2012-05-08 05:32:58

#12

Dilbert_X: The X stands for; +1,815|6345|eXtreme to the maX

Just trying to even out the double standards.

Fuck Israel

2012-05-08 06:10:53

#13

Superior Mind: (not macbeth); +1,755|6932

Try harder.

x

2012-05-08 09:02:24

#14

Cybargs: Moderated; +2,285|6955

AussieReaper wrote:
Think Bales should be tried in a military court system?

yep

https://cache.www.gametracker.com/server_info/203.46.105.23:21300/b_350_20_692108_381007_FFFFFF_000000.png

2012-05-08 11:06:56

#15

Spearhead: Gulf coast redneck hippy; +731|6929|Tampa Bay Florida

IIRC KSM was "interrogated" pretty harshly. If it was a civilian court this case would have probably been thrown out. Why even bother giving them a sham trial, send them back to where they came from and kill them with a drone.

2012-05-08 17:13:19

#16

13rin: Member; +977|6718

Death. Get that air cannon the mythbusters used to shoot frozen turkies at the windshields of planes and firing squad those fuckers with frozen piglets.

I stood in line for four hours. They better give me a Wal-Mart gift card, or something. - Rodney Booker, Job Fair attendee.

2012-05-08 17:42:18

#17

eusgen: Nugget; +402|7031|Jupiter

I would like proof they were responsible/conspirators before. I still think it's an inside job

2012-05-09 02:39:31

#18

Dilbert_X: The X stands for; +1,815|6345|eXtreme to the maX

Bush was a conspirator, since he sat back and did nothing knowing it was coming.

I bet he and Cheney thought it would be a trivial little attack which would then give them a free hand in the ME, they were surprised at the eventual size.

Thats why Bush sat there listening to the kids stories, he was expecting it, his plan was to see how it played out so there was no need for urgency.

Fuck Israel

2012-05-09 02:52:23

#19

FEOS: Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate; +1,182|6650|'Murka

Dilbert_X wrote:
There was no agreement in place with with the GoA regarding extradition of Bin Laden.

Different government. There were no agreements with the Taliban-led government, as it wasn't recognized by the majority of the international community.

Practice what you preach and hand Bales over to the Afghans.

Again, the agreement with the GoA states US military members will be tried by US courts, not Afghan courts. It's the same with the vast majority of nations with whom we have SOFAs.

Not that any of the 9/11 conspirators were exactly legally extradited in the first place....

They aren't considered civilian criminals, hence the military tribunals and hence not being applicable.

“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular

2012-05-09 03:46:02

#20

Ty: Mass Media Casualty; +2,398|7013|Noizyland

Suspected terrorists are not designated prisoners of war by the US nor are they civilian criminals, they are 'enemy combatants'. The reason for this is because it gives the US a method of circumventing the Geneva Convention, (and their own Bill of Rights,) so they can detain without evidence, ignore Habeas Corpus, use torture, hold people indefinitely without trial etc. etc. - all those good things. And then of course they based the prison in Cuba so they could again get around their own Bill of Rights. Then there were other practices such as detaining people and holding them - not to see what they knew but to see if they knew anything. They also offered cash rewards to Afghanis for suspected terrorists and Afghanis were giving up their own family members whether they were terrorists or not just to get the reward.

I imagine many innocent people were caught in the net but were kind of ignored because, well, there were terrorists out there and they needed to be caught dammit. As I understand there were cases of suicides which were dismissed as "an act of asymmetric warfare waged against the US" according to Rear Admiral Harry Harris who was Guantanomo's commander.

I don't entirely blame the authorities, they were taking their best shot as a form of warfare that they weren't familiar with, these things happen and they did their best. I guess.

But then there's the military tribunals. See these are great because they are not held to the same standards as civilian courts. There are rules of evidence in civilian courts. For example coercion is not admissible, nor is hearsay. But not to worry, the military tribunals are not tied down by this sort of thing and can convict and even execute on all kinds of evidence. And the sad thing is that this is really the only option left. Imagine the shame and embarrassment if these men went to trial in civilian court only to be acquitted because the evidence against them was non-admissible. They would never allow this to happen.

I'm not saying this to moan over these men's civil liberties, I have no sympathy for them if they are who they are believed to be. They will be executed, I'm pretty sure of that, but what I hope to put across is that whatever happens to them it won't be justice. Vengeance maybe but with so many important judicial practices ignored up to this point there's nothing else to be done. That is the great sad thing because it means there will be no true closure.

I'm not sure how many of you are familiar with the story of Mary Surratt - there was a film about her pretty recently starring James McAvoy, it's not bad. Surratt was tried, convicted and executed as a co-conspirator of the Lincoln assassination. The whole thing was a farce, she was essentially executed for political reasons. It was a pretty shameful moment in US history when fear dictated the concept of justice. She was posthumously acquitted and there was a lot of rhetoric about how such a thing would never be allowed happen again.

But lo in behold here we are once again with an altered concept of justice. I just hope more people understand what's going on this time.

[Blinking eyes thing]
Steam: http://steamcommunity.com/id/tzyon

2012-05-09 04:23:53

#21

FEOS: Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate; +1,182|6650|'Murka

We're not circumventing the GC at all. We're following it to the letter.

Clearly you need to read it.

And you obviously haven't educated yourself on military tribunals, either. They follow the same rules as civilian courts wrt evidentiary processes and burden of proof--the jurisdiction is simply different.

The alleged 9/11 conspirators (which this thread is about, btw) aren't Afghans turned in by their families for cash, so that argument simply doesn't hold water in this case.

Surratt was a conspirator in the Lincoln assassination. While her punishment probably shouldn't have been death, she was guilty of involvement in aiding/abetting those involved, which makes her a part of the overall conspiracy. Keep in mind that the threshold for the death penalty was much lower in the mid-late 1800s than it is today. And it WAS ~150 years ago...not really applicable to today's argument, tbh.

Habeas corpus hasn't been suspended, either. They are held based on evidence provided to a panel of judges. Just because you haven't seen the evidence doesn't mean it doesn't exist or that the process hasn't been followed.

“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular

2012-05-09 06:10:18

#22

Dilbert_X: The X stands for; +1,815|6345|eXtreme to the maX

FEOS wrote:
Again, the agreement with the GoA states US military members will be tried by US courts, not Afghan courts. It's the same with the vast majority of nations with whom we have SOFAs.

He was on govt business while AWOL in the middle of the night? Its not surprising most nations won't sign those SOFAs.

They aren't considered civilian criminals, hence the military tribunals and hence not being applicable.

So what are they considered to be? They aren't members of some foreign military so what are they supposedly?

Fuck Israel

2012-05-09 10:53:26

#23

Karbin: Member; +42|6533

Dilbert_X wrote:
So what are they considered to be? They aren't members of some foreign military so what are they supposedly?

Unlawful Combatant's

2012-05-09 15:47:43

#24

Ty: Mass Media Casualty; +2,398|7013|Noizyland

FEOS wrote:
We're not circumventing the GC at all. We're following it to the letter.

Clearly you need to read it.

Changing your definitions of prisoners so you don't have to follow the established rules on how to treat detainees is circumventing. While it may be following the convention to the letter it's nothing more than a loop-hole. I'm not even condemning it, I'm just calling it what it is.

FEOS wrote:
And you obviously haven't educated yourself on military tribunals, either. They follow the same rules as civilian courts wrt evidentiary processes and burden of proof--the jurisdiction is simply different.

Military tribunals have always been different to civilian courts given they they don't include a jury of one's peers and they don't require panellists, generally made up of commissioned officers, to reach a unanimous verdict. What's more it is the panel that decides whether evidence is admissible or not as they act as both judge and jury. Don't tell me that's following the same rules as a civilian court.

FEOS wrote:
The alleged 9/11 conspirators (which this thread is about, btw) aren't Afghans turned in by their families for cash, so that argument simply doesn't hold water in this case.

I wasn't arguing that, I was simply painting a picture of the sort of practices the US employed to gather terrorism suspects.

FEOS wrote:
Surratt was a conspirator in the Lincoln assassination. While her punishment probably shouldn't have been death, she was guilty of involvement in aiding/abetting those involved, which makes her a part of the overall conspiracy. Keep in mind that the threshold for the death penalty was much lower in the mid-late 1800s than it is today. And it WAS ~150 years ago...not really applicable to today's argument, tbh.

Maybe not, but it is an example of an injustice that was caused by a nation abandoning its notion of civil liberties and human rights because of fear - or because they were using surreptitious means to achieve some form of justice in the eyes of the public. Either way it wasn't justice and this situation risks the same.

FEOS wrote:
Habeas corpus hasn't been suspended, either. They are held based on evidence provided to a panel of judges. Just because you haven't seen the evidence doesn't mean it doesn't exist or that the process hasn't been followed.

In 2006 President Bush signed a law, the Military Commisions Act, which among other things suspended the right of habeas corpus to those determined by the United States to be an "enemy combatant" in the Global War on Terror. In 2008 the Supreme Court rule that the Act included an unconstitutional encroachment of habeas corpus rights and subsequently terminated the effect of the provisions that allowed this. I don't know how to expand on that.

[Blinking eyes thing]
Steam: http://steamcommunity.com/id/tzyon

2012-05-10 03:07:24

#25

FEOS: Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate; +1,182|6650|'Murka

Ty wrote:
FEOS wrote:
We're not circumventing the GC at all. We're following it to the letter.

Clearly you need to read it.
Changing your definitions of prisoners so you don't have to follow the established rules on how to treat detainees is circumventing. While it may be following the convention to the letter it's nothing more than a loop-hole. I'm not even condemning it, I'm just calling it what it is.

Again...read the GC. It has nothing to do with changing definitions. It has to do with what a given signatory has to do or not do when the actors involved do not follow the tenets of the GC, even if they (or their home nation) is not a signatory. Those men gave up any entitlement to GC treatment when they performed acts that fell outside the GC...namely terrorism.

You can call them whatever you want. It has nothing to do with the issue.

FEOS wrote:
And you obviously haven't educated yourself on military tribunals, either. They follow the same rules as civilian courts wrt evidentiary processes and burden of proof--the jurisdiction is simply different.
Military tribunals have always been different to civilian courts given they they don't include a jury of one's peers and they don't require panellists, generally made up of commissioned officers, to reach a unanimous verdict. What's more it is the panel that decides whether evidence is admissible or not as they act as both judge and jury. Don't tell me that's following the same rules as a civilian court.

So how would one get a jury of peers for the like of KSM, exactly? You can't.

The bottomline is that the tribunal system follows the same process and procedures of civil court wrt evidence, discovery, etc. And the panel has to follow the same decision process as a jury. The reason it doesn't use a standard jury is the classified nature of some of the evidence--the deciding group has to be vetted to ensure classified information is protected.

FEOS wrote:
The alleged 9/11 conspirators (which this thread is about, btw) aren't Afghans turned in by their families for cash, so that argument simply doesn't hold water in this case.
I wasn't arguing that, I was simply painting a picture of the sort of practices the US employed to gather terrorism suspects.

Those same methods (tip lines et al) are employed by NATO and other coalition nations. It is standard practice, and those who are responsible for those programs know full well that sometimes people turn others in for reasons not compatible with the programs. It's not like the money fairy shows up and drops a load of cash on these people without validating the rationale for picking up the person.

FEOS wrote:
Surratt was a conspirator in the Lincoln assassination. While her punishment probably shouldn't have been death, she was guilty of involvement in aiding/abetting those involved, which makes her a part of the overall conspiracy. Keep in mind that the threshold for the death penalty was much lower in the mid-late 1800s than it is today. And it WAS ~150 years ago...not really applicable to today's argument, tbh.
Maybe not, but it is an example of an injustice that was caused by a nation abandoning its notion of civil liberties and human rights because of fear - or because they were using surreptitious means to achieve some form of justice in the eyes of the public. Either way it wasn't justice and this situation risks the same.

It's not an example of that at all.

FEOS wrote:
Habeas corpus hasn't been suspended, either. They are held based on evidence provided to a panel of judges. Just because you haven't seen the evidence doesn't mean it doesn't exist or that the process hasn't been followed.
In 2006 President Bush signed a law, the Military Commisions Act, which among other things suspended the right of habeas corpus to those determined by the United States to be an "enemy combatant" in the Global War on Terror. In 2008 the Supreme Court rule that the Act included an unconstitutional encroachment of habeas corpus rights and subsequently terminated the effect of the provisions that allowed this. I don't know how to expand on that.

So the act isn't in effect. That would mean habeas corpus hasn't been suspended. That's how you expand on it.

“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular

Yes	53%	53% - 14
No	46%	46% - 12
Total: 26

BF2S Forums Executing 9/11 conspirators

Poll

Macbeth wrote:

AussieReaper wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

FEOS wrote:

FEOS wrote:

FEOS wrote:

FEOS wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Ty wrote:

FEOS wrote:

FEOS wrote:

FEOS wrote:

FEOS wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Board footer