Charges Dropped In Last Open Gitmo Trial

Top Judge Dismisses Case Against Accused USS Cole Bomber, Complying With Obama Order; Charges Can Be Reinstated In Future

(CBS/AP)  The Pentagon's senior judge overseeing terror trials at Guantanamo Bay dropped charges Thursday against an al Qaeda suspect in the 2000 USS Cole bombing, upholding President Barack Obama's order to freeze military tribunals there.

The charges against suspected al Qaeda bomber Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri marked the last active Guantanamo war crimes case.

The legal move by Susan J. Crawford, the top legal authority for military trials at Guantanamo, brings all cases into compliance with Obama's Jan. 22 executive order to halt terrorist court proceedings at the U.S. Navy base in Cuba.

Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell said Crawford dismissed the charges against al-Nashiri without prejudice. That means new charges can be brought again later. He will remain in prison for the time being.

"It was her decision, but it reflects the fact that the president has issued an executive order which mandates that the military commissions be halted, pending the outcome of several reviews of our operations down at Guantanamo," Morrell said late Thursday night.

The ruling also gives the White House time to review the legal cases of all 245 terror suspects held there and decide whether they should be prosecuted in the U.S. or released to other nations.

Obama was expected to meet with families of Cole and 9/11 victims at the White House on Friday afternoon to announce the move.

Seventeen U.S. sailors died on Oct. 12, 2000, when al Qaeda suicide bombers steered an explosives-laden boat into the Cole, a guided-missile destroyer, as it sat in a Yemen port.

The Pentagon last summer charged al-Nashiri, a Saudi Arabian, with "organizing and directing" the bombing and planned to seek the death penalty in the case.

In his Jan. 22 order, Obama promised to shut down the Guantanamo prison within a year. The order also froze all Guantanamo detainee legal cases pending a three-month review as the Obama administration decides where - or whether - to prosecute the suspects who have been held there for years, most without charges.

Two military judges granted Obama's request for a delay in other cases.

But a third military judge, Army Col. James Pohl, defied Obama's order by scheduling a Feb. 9 arraignment for al-Nashiri at Guantanamo. That left the decision on whether to continue to Crawford, whose delay on announcing what she would do prompted widespread concern at the Pentagon that she would refuse to follow orders and allow the court process to continue.

Retired Navy Cmdr. Kirk S. Lippold, the commanding officer of the Cole when it was bombed in Yemen in October 2000, said he will be among family members of Cole and 9/11 victims who are meeting with Obama at the White House on Friday afternoon.

Groups representing victims' families were angered by Obama's order, charging they had waited too long already to see the alleged attackers brought to court.

"I was certainly disappointed with the decision to delay the military commissions process," Lippold, now a defense adviser to Military Families United, said in an interview Thursday night. "We have already waited eight years. Justice delayed is justice denied. We must allow the military commission process to go forward."

Crawford was appointed to her post in 2007 by then-President George W. Bush. She was in the news last month when she said interrogation methods used on one suspect at Guantanamo amounted to torture. The Bush administration had maintained it did not torture.

Last year, al-Nashiri said during a Guantanamo hearing that he confessed to helping plot the Cole bombing only because he was tortured by U.S. interrogators. The CIA has admitted he was among terrorist suspects subjected to waterboarding, which simulates drowning, in 2002 and 2003 while being interrogated in secret CIA prisons.

[indamiddle]

I''''m not even going to try and apply the Constitution to terrorists nitwit
Posted by promaclaura

The constitution applies to anyone held under the powers the constitutuion. It give the president some rights and everyone else too. If a president uses a constitutional power to hold someone, the constition allows for certain rights for release or defense. That it how it works-It''''s that simple.

Posted by impeach___W at 01:32 PM : Feb 06, 2009
+ report abuse

*******

you sound familiar..ahhhh those radical liberal left used to call a ''bush apologist''

[indamiddle]

The guilty should be punished, but Bush and other like minded genocidal murderers have ensured justice is almost unreachable at this point.

Those not convicted of bona-fide charges should be released.

Posted by notfooled at 05:02 PM : Feb 07, 2009
+ report abuse

*****

the amount of DISINFORMATION AND LIES given by the liberal media and pro-terrorist radical liberal left made it impossible to do this..

those who controls the PROPAGANDA MACHINE WINS THE WAR

[notfooled]

Given the incredible amount of disinformation, propaganda, and outright lies perpetrated by the Bush/Cheney crime syndicate, it''s doubtful any of the prisoners could be fairly tried after being tortured into false confessions.

The guilty should be punished, but Bush and other like minded genocidal murderers have ensured justice is almost unreachable at this point.

Those not convicted of bona-fide charges should be released.

[blitzder]

April 1983: Beirut, U.S. Embassy Suicide car bomb, 63 killed. October 1983: Beirut, U.S. Marine barracks Bomb, 241 killed. December 1983: Kuwait City, U.S. Embassy Suicide truck bomb, 6 killed; dozens injured. September 1984: Beirut, U.S. embassy Suicide car bomb 16 killed. April 1985: Spain, Restaurant near U.S. Air Base Bombed, 17 Killed. August 1985, Germany, American base in Frankfurt car bomb, 2 killed, 20 injured. October 1985: Egyptian coast, Italian cruise ship Achille Lauro Hostage situation, 1 killed. November 1985: Egypt Air flight 648 Hijacking to Malta, 60 killed. December 1985: Rome and Vienna Airport attacks, 16 killed. April 1986; West Berlin night club Bomb, 3 killed, 150 injured. December 1988: Lockerbie, Scotland, Pan Am flight 103, 270 killed. June 1996: Dhahran, Saudi Arabia, Khobar Towers Truck bomb, 19 U.S. airmen killed. August 1998: Kenya and Tanzania U.S. embassies bombings, 263 killed, 5000 injured. October 2000: USS Cole, 17 killed. September 11, 2001: World Trade Center, Pentagon, Pensylvania Airplane crashes, over 6000 killed, thousands injured...

Total about 7000 killed.

NOW TAKE A LOOK AT THE BOMBING FIGURES OF KILLINGS BY US & ISRAEL(with US help).In IRAQ, LEBANON, IRAN, EGYPT, SYRIA, PAKISTAN, AFGHANISTAN, GAZA etc. mostly covert, overt (cluster bombs) & drone attacks since 1980.

TOTAL muslims killed = 25,000,000 (twenty five million plus) and most were civilian women & children.

[hamiltongrad]

Da Vicar: excellent post.

the silence if deafening.

[hamiltongrad]

What about the families of the men killed ? They deserve some type of justice.

I don''t understand how terrorists are given rights to our courts system. This never happened in WWII or any other of our wars. I don''t think this makes us safer, just the opposite. Will the army have to gather evidence on the battle field, and read these nutkooks their rights ?


This is very very bizarre.

[impeach___w]

DaVicar4
you can hate all you want. But you need to seperate the civillian targets from the military. One is terrorism and the other is war

[impeach___w]

I''m not even going to try and apply the Constitution to terrorists nitwit
Posted by promaclaura

The constitution applies to anyone held under the powers the constitutuion. It give the president some rights and everyone else too. If a president uses a constitutional power to hold someone, the constition allows for certain rights for release or defense. That it how it works-It''s that simple.

[impeach___w]

If you attack civilians targets to cause fear- that is terrorism. When your colluges openly declare war on the US and then attack an military target-that is war. Get that straigt because it''''''''s not the same thing. There is a HUGE difference!

Posted by Impeach___W

So, is it your contention they should be afforded the protections of the convention? Or do you think they should just be shown the door?

Posted by IndepTex

I believe the supreme court already ruled they are POWS. And they BUSH appointee in charge of detainee trails already declared we tortured them and refused bring charges because she ruled the bush''s extremely limited view of torture was met in the case of "a 20th hijacker" . This was all before Obama took office. He inherited this disaster called gitmo which was already well on its way to falling apart.

[promaclaura]

My heart goes out to those who suffered on the Cole or lost their lives. I''''''''m sickened by the posters that want to defend the rights of those who committed the atrocities. Left-wing nutjobs don''''''''t even worry about the "rights" of the Cole victims, it''''''''s all about getting Bush.

Posted by promaclaura

Don''''t you people believe in what this country stands for anymore??????? All Obama wants to do is make certain these people are guilty! Not more innocent props that Bush used to further his ambitions. You people like to forget that most of the folks in Gitmo were sold by Pakistani and Afghan people for money. A of them were already released with no charges being brought against them. That leaves a lot of us to believe they were not guilty to begin with just pawns in a ruthless Presidents Chess game. Regardless of who they are we are supposed to be giving them a fair trial. That is if you people still believe in the Constitution???? And you aren''''t fascist like Bush!


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted by grumpas at 08:58 AM : Feb 06, 2009

I''m not even going to try and apply the Constitution to terrorists nitwit. Look at all the liberals spewing their concern for terrorists and not offering ONE WORD of concern for those who died on the Cole and their rights. Read liberal posts, not one iota of concern for the Americans rights, only terrorists.

[joe-ny-2]

he/her may never reover from your latest haymaker.........


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted by IndepTex at 12:06 PM : Feb 06, 2009

Yeah, that "why do you hate muslims" left-hook, left the lib speechless and on the floor.....LOL

[hambonehd]

DaVicar4,

GREAT POST !!

[joe-ny-2]

Posted by DaVicar4 at 11:27 AM : Feb 06, 2009

I hope you don''t mind if I re-use your information, for future discussions.

[joe-ny-2]

Posted by slownewsday2 at 11:06 AM : Feb 06, 2009

Do you deny that nearly all of the middle east terrorists are radical muslims ? yes or no....and also, I haven''t heard any "good" muslims say one peep or speak out about the "bad" ones, or radical elements of the religion, so that causes intelligent thinking people to question muslims as a whole group....it creates "suspicion" not guilt, suspicion.

[joe-ny-2]

Posted by notblue at 11:13 AM : Feb 06, 2009

To be clear, they are not being "let go", but remain in prison, and the charges can be brought up again...that''s after the all mighty one blesses the charges....so in the end, they probably will be let loose, to re-commit a new act of terror

[notblue]

tomtona, not surprised. Where were these "people" captured? Does that help? Probably not!

[notblue]

slownewsdays, what do have against blaming these particular Muslims? What ethnic/religious group have carried out these attacks, if we have the wrong group please enlighten us. What differance does it make now that they are being set free?

[hambonehd]

tj217

Go clean yourself up.!

[usclimey]

The British tried something similar to Guantanamo in Irelend - internment without in the Maze prison. Many Americans donated money to the IRA to help these terrorists with their defence. Peace talks went nowhere during the time the MAze was occupied. Things started improving only after the Good Friday accords in 1998 after which the Maze was closed down. No settlement in any conflict can occur while symbols of autocratic power such as Gitmo or the Maze still exist.

[tomtona]

By the way, what makes me a liberal. I am opposed to Government bailouts and Government funded "Faith Based Initiatives". Aren''t those the types of programs that liberals support?