Khalid Sheikh Mohammed: Civilian or Military Court
- Thread starter William Haskins
- Start date
Hatley received a life sentence that was later reduced to 40 years; Sgt. 1st Class Joseph Mayo, who had pleaded guilty to the charges, and Sgt. Michael Leahy, a medic, are serving 20-year terms. Hatley and Leahy are appealing their convictions, while Mayo is seeking a lighter sentence.
http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/11/17/army.tapes.canal.killings/index.html
We can damn sure use the military court system to punish our own…and ensure the world knows it.
http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/11/17/army.tapes.canal.killings/index.html
We can damn sure use the military court system to punish our own…and ensure the world knows it.
Good point. What makes the military court system okay for our own criminals but not those of other countries?
Also, why is it okay that they've been housed at a military prison all these years and all of the sudden we're debating their status as war criminals?
I'm not bothered by having a president who is willing to change his mind. It's refreshing, actually.
Well, I think this is. The military tribunal system the Bush Administration tried to set up was a sham, and hopelessly tainted even after the courts forced it to make changes. This is the best way to restore confidence that there will be a fair trial.
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2007
- Messages
- 20,006
- Reaction score
- 5,352
All right, but since neither of us have close contacts inside the Administration, it's speculation only. I obviously disagree and feel it's just a little political sleight of hand designed to make the President look more decisive than he actually is.
While I don't share Bird of Prey's distrust of military justice, the way the Pat Tillman case has been handled by the military is scandalous and outrageous.
I don't know of a single credible writer that doesn't recoil in horror at the prospect of censorship. What are suggestions that someone should "find another country" or "you are possessed of a narrow mind" but a variation of censorship because Bird of Prey expresses an unpopular sentiment.
I have recoiled from some of Bird of Prey's prior remarks on various subjects and fully expect to again, but I will defend her right to say things that piss me off.
Hell, I'll even throw in Haskins 'cause I'm in a good mood.
OK? So? I know I didn't recommend any sort of censorship, just rather overwhelming vexation at the opinion expressed...which I believe is my right as well. 
It's not a matter of trustworthiness. It's a matter of jurisdiction.
Khalid is a civilian. He has committed a civil crime. He does not represent any nation. He is not a member of any nation's military system or intelligence network. The U.S. is not at war with any nation.
His case belongs in a civilian court.
Khalid is a civilian. He has committed a civil crime. He does not represent any nation. He is not a member of any nation's military system or intelligence network. The U.S. is not at war with any nation.
His case belongs in a civilian court.
If the outcome is guaranteed, why are people who support a military trial objecting to a civilian court trial? Because the outcome in a military trial would be just as guaranteed. Your objection makes no sense.
FWIW, the outcome is not any more guaranteed either way than in countless other trials that go on every day.
If a jury of 12 New Yorkers decide that this man was punished enough in Guantanamo, so be it. If they give him a death sentence, so be that, as well.
because military trials will stll be held for other Gitmo detainees, why the split? That makes no sense
as for being found innocent, the government has also stated that they will not be released even if acquitted
- Joined
- Mar 18, 2005
- Messages
- 46,262
- Reaction score
- 9,912
- Location
- on the Seven Bridges Road
- Website
- thepondsofhappenstance.com
But he was captured in a military operation, in Pakistan, where he had no citizenship. And even though the US is not at war with a nation, there's no question that al Qaeda claims to be at war with the US.
HRW wants civilian trials, it is true, but even they admit that "members of al Qaeda seek to be acknowledged as soldiers rather than denigrated as criminals."
It's a muddy thing, as Matt said. And really, it's up to the US government to make the decision. It could go either way.
- Joined
- Mar 18, 2005
- Messages
- 46,262
- Reaction score
- 9,912
- Location
- on the Seven Bridges Road
- Website
- thepondsofhappenstance.com
Well, there's also the question of whether or not a civilian trial will compromise intelligence work. No small thing, that.
he's a war criminal. 9/11 was an attack on america and american interests by self-proclaimed jihadists.
he should be tried in a military court as a war criminal.
he should be tried in a military court as a war criminal.
- Joined
- Mar 18, 2005
- Messages
- 46,262
- Reaction score
- 9,912
- Location
- on the Seven Bridges Road
- Website
- thepondsofhappenstance.com
That's my feeling on the matter, as well.
But strictly speaking, Congress has the authority to make the decision, to define exactly what a war criminal is and how he/she should be treated:
Terrorists are terrorists; soldiers are soldiers. We have our own definitions, and we should operate by those, not the ones given to us by the people on trial.
AMC
AMC
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2007
- Messages
- 20,006
- Reaction score
- 5,352
Because I like it here for one thing; for another thing I respect the military and the efforts they make on my behalf. *shrug* Why should I leave a country I love? If I hated America and didn't trust the military that wards it, I assure you I'd move. Otherwise, the hypocrisy would strangle me.
I couldn't justify remaining in a country and enjoying the benefits it provides me if I harbored a deep-seated mistrust of the men and women who volunteer their services and their lives to make sure I had the ability to do that.
But wait . . . didn't the preceding Administration argue vociferously against application of Geneva Convention rules regarding POWs precisely because these jihadists were not lawful combatants?
caw