Politics
Out of context: Reply #9509
- Started
- Last post
- 33,772 Responses
- johndiggity0
so the united states captures ksm in 2003 and holds him in gitmo for 4 years. in 2004 the us institutes a series of combatant status review tribunals to determine if those being held are correctly classified as enemy combatants.
an enemy combatant is defined as "any person in an armed conflict who could be properly detained under the laws and customs of war" which can be replaced by "party to the conflict" in the geneva convention.
the tribunal classifies ksm and others as "unlawful combatants." this is an important distinction because "unlawful combatants" are not afforded the same protections as "enemy combatants" under the geneva convention.
an "unlawful combatant" is defined as "a civilian who directly engages in armed conflict in violation of international humanitarian law (IHL) and may be detained or prosecuted under the domestic law the detaining state for such action."
in 2006 ksm is moved from gitmo, where he alleged he was tortured (waterboarded) and was told he would receive no lawyer and his family would be killed unless he cooperated.
in 2007 he and other confess to a military judge and ask to enter a guilty plea to masterminding the 1993 wtc bombing, 9/11, bali, and the shoe bomber, among others.
under us military law, the judge presiding over the tribunal can sentence him immediately (most probably death). and the us supreme court, the geneva convention, and historical precedent would support this.
instead he is to enter his guilty plea in a federal court in the state of new york where he is charged with 2,973 counts of murder. the federal prosecution is seeking the death penalty.
if you are the defendant's legal team: your defendant's right to miranda was revoked, he was threatened, tortured, and made to make statements under extreme duress. also, the trial is to take place in the same state as the attacks, so impartiality will be hard to come by.
there are so many things that could go wrong i just don't understand why they would try this man. i would not be surprised if he walks, or at the very least, ties this up in appeals until the end of time.
- Man you are really into this huh...I doubt it will effect any of us one way or the other in the long runukit
- Perhaps someone should have had the foresight to see that torture, or implied torture brings a lot of baggage.IRNlun6
- Regardless, this will not be the circus it's being portrayed as and much of those actions will not affect the prosecution.IRNlun6
- And where are these "rules of law" on the use of torture, which you don't seem to mention. Hmmm?Dr_Sparkleshine
- I think they are equally unlawful and that's why you don't want this heard in civilian courts...Dr_Sparkleshine
- ..because Bush and his Keifer "24" fantasies fucked the entire thing.Dr_Sparkleshine
- Of course, when us "libruls" warned about the illegality of torutre vis-a-vis the Geneva accords you told us to "fuck off, pussies"Dr_Sparkleshine
- So, now you fuck off, limp dick. Can't hide behind legalities when you flouted them in the past. Suck on that.Dr_Sparkleshine
- who the fuck are you talking to? this isn't about politics. get over yourself. no one takes you seriously.johndiggity