Justice, the American way.

Danthus · 4 Apr 2011 at 19:04

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-12964588

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the alleged mastermind of the 9/11 attacks, and four of his alleged co-conspirators will be tried in a military commission at Guantanamo Bay, reports say.

Attorney General Eric Holder is set to announce the decision later on Monday.

The Obama administration had planned to try Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in a civilian court, but abandoned that plan in the face of fierce opposition.

President Obama recently lifted a freeze on new military terror trials.

He accused the US Congress of harming national security by opposing his plan to close the controversial Cuban prison and try some terror suspects in US civilian courts.

So apart from Obama breaking his promise to close Guantanamo Bay and then reinstating military terror trials it seems the chance of a fair trial has been scrapped.

Following news of the announcement, House Judiciary Committee Chairman Lamar Smith, of Texas, was quoted by AFP as saying: "It's unfortunate that it took the Obama administration more than two years to figure out what the majority of Americans already know: that 9/11 conspirator Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is not a common criminal, he's a war criminal."

Why then if he is a war criminal is he not facing an international court in the Hague?

arknor · 4 Apr 2011 at 19:08

give that man the nobel peace prize!

oh wait

Biohazard · 4 Apr 2011 at 19:09

Hmmmmmm.

"America... **** yeah!"

trigger-happy · 4 Apr 2011 at 19:09

Where is the evidence to accuse this man of 9/11. Secondly I'm one of those guys who thinks its an inside job.

****storm commencing in 3...2...1...

Biohazard · 4 Apr 2011 at 19:09

trigger-happy said:
Where is the evidence to accuse this man of 9/11. Secondly I'm one of those guys who thinks its an inside job.

Ceryndrion · 4 Apr 2011 at 19:11

OldCoals said:
Why then if he is a war criminal is he not facing an international court in the Hague?

Because the United States do not recognise the authority of the International Criminal Court

Biohazard · 4 Apr 2011 at 19:12

Ceryndrion said:
Because the United States do not recognise the authority of the International Criminal Court

"America... **** yeah!"

Ok, I'll stop now.

Dunks · 4 Apr 2011 at 19:14

Ceryndrion said:
Because the United States do not recognise the authority of the International Criminal Court

Can't really blame them, they're hardly doing a stellar job.

deuse · 4 Apr 2011 at 19:20

If the guy is found guilty I wonder what the punishment will be the electric chair or injection.
I think it's good that the trial is not going to be done in the civilian courts.

Biohazard · 4 Apr 2011 at 19:21

Dunks said:
Can't really blame them, they're hardly doing a stellar job.

It isn't helped with the en masse one foot in one foot out approach.

mmj_uk · 4 Apr 2011 at 19:23

Lack of evidence attributing him to the crime? he might actually get a fair trial in the Hague.

Danthus · 4 Apr 2011 at 19:24

deuse said:
If the guy is found guilty I wonder what the punishment will be the electric chair or injection.
I think it's good that the trial is not going to be done in the civilian courts.

Why is it good that he will not face a trial in a civilian court.

He faces a trial in a kangaroo court.

Danthus · 4 Apr 2011 at 19:25

mmj_uk said:
Lack of evidence attributing him to the crime? he might actually get a fair trial in the Hague.

Didn't you hear, he confessed whilst being held in a location that did not offer him the protection granted to normal prisoners of war.

Remember now, he is an enemy combatant, not a prisoner of war.

deuse · 4 Apr 2011 at 19:32

OldCoals said:
Why is it good that he will not face a trial in a civilian court.

He faces a trial in a kangaroo court.

A kangaroo court? Have you got evidence of a trial that has not even been started yet?

If it was done in a civilian court it could take 10-15 years for the sentence to happen because of the appeals.

Biohazard · 4 Apr 2011 at 19:33

deuse said:
A kangaroo court? Have you got evidence of a trial that has not even been started yet?

If it was done in a civilian court it could take 10-15 years for the sentence to happen because of the appeals.

The appeals happen after.

Danthus · 4 Apr 2011 at 19:36

deuse said:
A kangaroo court? Have you got evidence of a trial that has not even been started yet?

If it was done in a civilian court it could take 10-15 years for the sentence to happen because of the appeals.

Why should time be a reason to bypass justice? You are very naive not to think it is anything other than a kangaroo court.

deuse · 4 Apr 2011 at 19:36

Biohazard said:
The appeals happen after.

That's why I said it would take 10-15 years of appeals for the sentence to be carried out.

semi-pro waster · 4 Apr 2011 at 19:36

Dunks said:
Can't really blame them, they're hardly doing a stellar job.

If America actually supported the ICC then it might have a somewhat better chance, as it is they've taken the approach of "no, we don't trust you with our citizens but you should surrender us your citizens if we ask". Frankly they should be told to get knotted, they play along fairly or not at all.

deuse · 4 Apr 2011 at 19:37

OldCoals said:
Why should time be a reason to bypass justice?

Why don't you answer me

edit= your ninja editing skills fail you

Biohazard · 4 Apr 2011 at 19:37

deuse said:
That's why I said it would take 10-15 years of appeals for the sentence to be carried out.

While you are in jail.

Appeals on average are no where near 15 years either to be fair.