WASHINGTON, Nov. 13, 2009
U.S. to Seek Death Penalty in 9/11 Cases
Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, 4 Other Detainees to Face Trial in Civilian Court in N.Y.C, a Test of Obama Policy on Terrorism
-
Play CBS Video Video 9/11 Suspects' Trial in NYC The alleged masterminds behind the September 11 terrorist attacks will be tried in a New York City courthouse near the very site of ground zero. Justice correspondent Bob Orr reports.
-
-
Attorney General Eric Holder speaks during a news conference at the Justice Department in Washington, Friday, Nov. 13, 2009, where he announced that five alleged conspirators in the 9/11 terrorist attacks will be tried in federal civilian court in New York City. (AP Photo/Guillermo Arias)
-
Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (AP Photo)
-
-
Photo Essay Inside the Guantanamo Hearings Sketches from inside the courtroom with the men accused of plotting the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks.
-
Interactive Gitmo Tribunals Detainees on trial, photos and a history of the naval base.
Self-proclaimed Sept. 11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and four other Guantanamo Bay detainees will be brought to trial in a civilian federal courthouse in New York, near the site of the devastating 2001 terror attacks. Prosecutors expect to seek the death penalty.
Attorney General Eric Holder announced the long-awaited and politically fraught decision at a news conference Friday. He also said five other Guantanamo detainees, including a major suspect in the bombing of the USS Cole, Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, will be tried through the military commission process.
Holder said the Sept. 11 defendants should be tried where their crimes occurred. Nearly 3,000 people died when the World Trade Center towers were brought down by two hijacked jetliners, another hijacked jet hit the Pentagon and a fourth crashed in western Pennsylvania.
"After eight years of delay, those allegedly responsible for the attacks of September the 11th will finally face justice," Holder said. "They will be brought to New York - to New York - to answer for their alleged crimes in a courthouse just blocks away from where the twin towers once stood."
Bringing such notorious suspects to U.S. soil to face trial is a key step in President Barack Obama's plan to close the terror suspect detention center at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Obama initially planned to close the prison by Jan. 22, but the administration is no longer expected to meet that deadline.
"For over 200 years our nation has relied upon a faithful adherence to the rule of law," Holder said. "Once again, we will ask our legal system in two venues to answer that call."
The plan that Holder outlined is a major legal and political test of Obama's overall approach to terrorism. If the case suffers legal setbacks, the administration will face second-guessing from those who never wanted it in a civilian courtroom. And if lawmakers get upset about terrorists being brought to their home regions, they may fight back against other parts of Obama's agenda.
"This is not a huge surprise. There have been hints that the attorney general was leaning in this direction but it's a huge departure from the strategy and tactics of the Bush administration, which had tried and failed to get Mohammed tried by the military," writes CBS News chief legal analyst Andrew Cohen.
Early reaction was divided along political lines.
Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky said bringing the terrorism suspects into the U.S. "is a step backwards for the security of our country and puts Americans unnecessarily at risk."
Republican Sen. Jon Kyl of Arizona said bringing Mohammed to New York for trial also could result in the disclosure of classified information. Kyl maintained that the trial of Omar Abdel Rahman, the so-called "blind sheik" who was tried for a plot against some two-dozen New York City landmarks, caused "valuable information about U.S. intelligence sources and methods" to be revealed to the al Qaeda terrorist network.
Former President George W. Bush's last attorney general, Michael Mukasey, a former federal judge in New York, also objected: "The Justice Department claims that our courts are well suited to the task. Based on my experience trying such cases and what I saw as attorney general, they aren't."
But Senate Judiciary Committee chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., said the federal courts are capable of trying high-profile terrorists.
"By trying them in our federal courts, we demonstrate to the world that the most powerful nation on earth also trusts its judicial system - a system respected around the world," Leahy said.
Some family members of Sept. 11 victims were angered by the decision.
"We have a president who doesn't know we're at war," said Debra Burlingame, whose brother, Charles Burlingame, had been the pilot of the hijacked plane that crashed into the Pentagon. She said she was sickened by "the prospect of these barbarians being turned into victims by their attorneys," if the trial winds up focusing on allegations that the suspects were tortured after their capture.
Some Sept. 11 families have supported the move toward public trials, saying they want to see justice done openly.
"If we claim to be a country that believes in the rule of law, then we need to behave that way ourselves," said John Leinung, the stepfather of Paul J. Battaglia, who died in the collapse of the twin towers.
"Sept. 11 families are like any other group of people," said Leinung. "There are going to be people with different outlooks, but there are a significant number of us who believe that the federal courts were the proper way to do this."
The New York case may force the court system to confront a host of difficult legal issues surrounding counterterrorism programs begun after the 2001 attacks, including the harsh interrogation techniques once used on some of the suspects while in CIA custody. The most severe method - waterboarding, or simulated drowning - was used on Mohammed 183 times in 2003, before the practice was banned.
The five suspects are headed to New York together because they are all accused of conspiring in the 2001 attacks. The five headed to military commissions face a variety of charges but many of them include attacks specifically against the U.S. military.
Holder said no decision had been made on where commission-bound detainees like al-Nashiri might be sent. A brig in South Carolina has been high on the list of sites under consideration.
The actual transfer of the detainees from Guantanamo to New York isn't expected to happen for many more weeks because formal charges have not been filed against most of them.
The attorney general decided the case of the five Sept. 11 suspects should be handled by prosecutors working in the Southern District of New York, which has held a number of major terrorism trials in recent decades at the courthouse in lower Manhattan. Other federal prosecutors from northern Virginia, site of the Pentagon, will help with the trial, he said.
Holder had been considering other possible trial locations, including Virginia, Washington, D.C., and a different courthouse in New York City. Those districts could end up conducting trials of other Guantanamo detainees sent to federal court later on.
The attorney general's decision in these cases comes just before a Monday deadline for the government to decide how to proceed against 10 detainees facing military commissions.
The administration has already sent one Guantanamo detainee, Ahmed Ghailani, to New York to face trial. But he is not nearly as notorious as Mohammed, who has proudly proclaimed his role in 9/11 and dozens of terror plots.
Held at Guantanamo since September 2006, Mohammed said in military proceedings there that he wanted to plead guilty and be executed to achieve what he views as martyrdom. In a letter from him released by the war crimes court in September, he referred to the attacks as a "noble victory" and urged U.S. authorities to "pass your sentence on me and give me no respite."
Mohammed already has an outstanding terror indictment against him in New York, for an unsuccessful plot to simultaneously take down multiple airliners over the Pacific Ocean in the 1990s.
When some politicians have objected the trials would be too dangerous for nearby civilians, the Obama administration has pointed out that many terrorists have been safely tried, convicted, and imprisoned in the United States, including the 1993 World Trade Center bomber, Ramzi Yousef.
"The decision is a vote of confidence in the federal courts and in civilian prosecutors and there are still some safeguards in place to ensure that Mohammed doesn't turn the trial into a religious or political showpiece. There also are ways in which the feds can protect their classified information and still use it at trial," says Cohen.
Mohammed and the four others - Waleed bin Attash, Ramzi Binalshibh, Mustafa Ahmad al-Hawsawi and Ali Abd al-Aziz Ali - are accused of orchestrating the 2001 attacks.
Navy Cmdr. Suzanne Lachelier, the military lawyer appointed to represent Ramzi Binalshibh, said Sept. 11 attorneys had not been notified of the administration's decision but welcomed the apparent move to civilian court.
The four other detainees headed to military commissions in the United States are: Omar Khadr, Ahmed Mohammed al Darbi, Ibrahim Ahmed Mahmoud al Qosi, and Noor Uthman Muhammed. Their cases are not specifically connected but two of them are accused of plotting against or attacking U.S. military personnel.
Barry Coburn, a lawyer for Khadr, called the decision about his client "devastating and shocking."
Khadr "was 15 years old when he was detained in Afghanistan as a child soldier and has been locked away in Guantanamo ever since," he said.
Supporters of a trial in the civilian court system in New York said the benefits for the trial's legitimacy outweigh the loss of any potentially tainted evidence.
"We can't be afraid of our own laws," said retired Rear Adm. John Hutson, who was the Navy's judge advocate general from 1997 to 2000 and is now president of the Franklin Pierce Law Center in Concord, N.H.
© MMIX, CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. The Associated Press contributed to this report.
Add a Comment See all 401 Comments
- by jefleshman November 16, 2009 8:04 AM EST
I do not deal with or handle terrorists detentions, in basic training, yes, we receive basic information called the 5S rule that applies.
--------------------------
What is the 5S rule? I can find no information about it. I asked this question before, but my post has since disappeared. - Reply to this comment
- by jefleshman November 16, 2009 6:00 AM EST
That is why I am glad I am not a lawyer and not an interrogator... It is not as simple as you think.
------------------------
Yes it is! Normal people know exactly what's right and what's wrong. Would you stand by and watch your mother being waterboarded? - Reply to this comment
-
- Again you are paraphrasing and cut and paste without the whole meaning of the context of what is written to mislead.
The above cut and paste you took from a thought out post (I did) is in reference to your only document wanting to "discuss" which is the Geneva Convention (GC), which you did not acknowledge has a lot of GREY and is not so much black and white. Also, we are working under US Law. Afghan law, US Rules of Engagement, ISAF ROE, Army Regulations and so on and so forth... so NO it is not that simple.
Maybe for you who have never served in uniform for your nation in time of war or conflict it is.
The other part you left out was (just using the GC) is just like a religious fanatic only using the Bible or Qur'an as the ONLY text to conduct your life in. There are manning interpretations of the same versus in both of those "Holy Texts".
So, for me to say (which I have already said), I have an issue with some interrogation techniques which includes water boarding is a generalized statement and is not meant to apply to EVERY situation at hand.
I remember in IRAQ there was a story of a Marine that "shot" a guy dead after he was "Down and wounded" while clearing a room... I think it was in Fallusha (SP?). The media jumped all over the story saying how it violated all kinds of GC rules and human rights and so on. After the investigation was concluded and finally a little bit of the fog of war lifted, come to find out... earlier that day the same individual was in a very similar situation and the "guy down" had a trigger and detonated an IED and killed a few of his men... so on this occasion just hours later the "guy down" made a very suspicious move looking like he was possibly going to detonate an IED with a trigger, the Marine shot him dead, even though he was "so-called unarmed". Come to find out there was no trigger on the guy who was shot dead, However, the Marine was found not guilty of breaking any laws.
Why did I bring this up? Because you try to take a snap shot of time as an outsider looking in and want to judge people, just like you will take a cut and paste of something someone posted and twist it, to try to prove your one-sided point of view.
I bet you were one of the people crying foul when the Marine was found not guilty of breaking any laws. It doesnt matter, because if you were, oh well get over it guy... that is called GREY or the "fog of war", both of which you are blind to.
I have to go now and will not be on for a while. I do wish you good luck and hope you find peace. I would hate going through life not open to another persons point of view... I understand yours somewhat, but you do not even try to take the time to really understand those who serve...you just complain and critize. Well, that is your right...enjoy it. Because if you were an Afghan before 2001, what kind of rights would you have had? Think about that Fink... REALLY think about that. Is Afghanistan better now then it was...the Afghans I talk to say 1000 times better, is it perfect NO, does it still have a long way to go - you bet, but we are here side by side with them making a difference.
What are you making? In my opinion... HOT AIR!
- Yes, I read about that incident in Fallujah at the time and I made no judgement because there was insufficient information....... and in fact there is still only hearsay evidence from fellow soldiers. So your conclusion about me is completely wrong.
So tell me, what possible doubt is there about the right and wrong of torturing a man lying bound, naked and shaking with fear in front of you? There is no 'fog of war', no instant reactions are needed, and the Geneva Conventions are unequivocal........
- Again you are paraphrasing and cut and paste without the whole meaning of the context of what is written to mislead.
- by jefleshman November 16, 2009 7:52 AM EST
To answer your dumb question you act like all of us are interrogators and have that training. I am not in that line of work, how many times do you have to read that to understand it.
-------------------
So are you saying that you are given NO TRAINING about how to treat prisoners? It's a simple question, not a dumb one....... - Reply to this comment
- NICE TRY FINK below... you are as bad as the media who mislead people, why didnt you put the who statement?
To mislead people, that is why!
------------------------------------------
by jefleshman November 16, 2009 6:27 AM EST
Under the GC, you might as well not detain anyone, becuase I interpret it as you can not do anything to the individual at all.
Personally I do not agree with waterbording... is it legal? That is up to the courts to decide.
------------------------------------------
by jefleshman November 16, 2009 7:26 AM EST
by finkfurst November 16, 2009 6:41 AM EST
Are you told in your training that waterboarding is legal? If you only ever answer ONE question on this forum, answer THAT one...............
------------------------------
Fink, I am not an interrorgator so they do not tell me anything about that stuff.
----------------------------- - Reply to this comment
-
- by jefleshman November 16, 2009 7:46 AM EST
NICE TRY FINK below... you are as bad as the media who mislead people, why didnt you put the who statement?
-----------------------
Sorry, I don't understand, your English is not very good. What is "the who statement"?
- you know what it was suppose to read "special one"...
Whole... like your a whole lot of a special person, or if I would have typed hole... it would sound like the same word but different.
- "it would sound like the same word but different"? You're still making no sense at all, so I give up. Speak plainly or don't bother to speak...... so please answer my simple question about your training.
- by jefleshman November 16, 2009 7:46 AM EST
- by jefleshman November 16, 2009 6:27 AM EST
Personally I do not agree with waterbording... is it legal?
------------------------
A member of the US armed forces, CW2 John Fleshman, TF Spartan, still doesn't know whether waterboarding is legal or illegal. Does anyone else find that astonishing and disturbing? What kind of training are US forces being given????? - Reply to this comment
-
- Funny Fink (Laughing) I posted on top of yours... with the complete quote... funny how you left that out.
To answer your dumb question you act like all of us are interrogators and have that training. I am not in that line of work, how many times do you have to read that to understand it.
Again, you are the special one!
- Funny Fink (Laughing) I posted on top of yours... with the complete quote... funny how you left that out.
- by finkfurst November 15, 2009 12:45 PM EST
I'm not criticizing you for defending anyone, I'm criticising the METHODS you're using.
-------------------------------
Sorry, Had to go earlier (Yesterday)
Thank goodness, I am NOT in that line of work (interrogator); I would have problems with some approved techniques as well (But I do not know the facts on the techniques and only know what you read about, so is it like most things "sensationalized" to sell a story or for a person to be "over dramatic" to get sympathy? I do not know).
It would be interesting to hear your thoughts on what are acceptable detention and interrogation techniques for:
1. While engaged in active War and or Conflict
2. Normal everyday life (police business)
Because there is a difference and different standards are put in place because of that.
For example, I do not see an issue with "Sleep Deprivation" to find out more information (where does he get the stuff, who does he work for, who pays him, who else is in his cell... etc) for a captured terrorist (Intel confirms the guy is a bomb maker and has led to the deaths of Coalition Forces and Afghan citizens, not to mention in the house was all the bomb making material and he has already confessed during tactical questioning in his home), in War or Conflict, but it doesnt really seem appropriate in normal everyday life... such as Police catch a "suspect" who just robbed a gas station.
Your thoughts on what is appropriate for the 2 very different circumstances I mentioned? - Reply to this comment
-
- You asked me question 1 before and the answer is still perfectly obvious - the Geneva Conventions. What the hell did you think they're for? Wiping your backside? Maybe you haven't abused any prisoners yourself, but you work for an organisation that DELIBERATELY breaks the Geneva Conventions, and you have just admitted that you have a problem with that! How can you possibly continue? Don't you have any personal morals or integrity?
Question 2 - UK police procedures are just about right, and are very effective.
Have you noticed that I answer EVERY ONE of your questions clearly and honestly, but you can't answer mine. Would you like to know why that is?
- P.S. When I said "I'm criticising the METHODS you're using", I also meant your illegal invasion of countries, drone attacks killing innocent people, and much more.
- So, if the detainees have the same grooming standards of the US military, that is not torture.(No beard, nice groomed haircut)
I am glad we agree. Oh, wait by the document that is so perfectly clear and interpreted only one way (I am being sarcastic) it may be considered inhuman and perceived as "torture" by the detainee and by the Geneva Conventions (GC).
Like you and your singular examples you like to throw out to the reading audience, you want to use only the GC and I want to use FM 34-52 which I also have to use the GC and I also have to use International Law and I also have to use Rules of Engagement and I also have to use Host Nation law and I also have to use US Government Law...
and so on and so on.
That is why I am glad I am not a lawyer and not an interrogator... It is not as simple as you think.
It is not so clear cut and black and white. There is a ton of GREY in the GC document alone, now add all the "other" rules and wow can you see the dilemma.
To answer you question, have I personal morals and integrity? Yes, I do and from what I witnessed so far PERSONALLY, the Afghans and ISAF are doing it right. You bring them in and question them. For the most part the reality of things only the VERY VERY bad go away to Jail or a Detention facility. The others get freed within days (for various reasons).
Can you provide all the UK Police interrogation procedures used when they detain a "suspect"?
Do they use sleep deprivation or adjustment? Environmental manipulation when questioning?
I bet you find it controversial to the GC and an argument can be made that their techniques considered "torture or inhuman".
- by jefleshman November 16, 2009 6:00 AM EST
So, if the detainees have the same grooming standards of the US military, that is not torture.(No beard, nice groomed haircut)
----------------------
Are you completely out of your mind?
- "only the VERY VERY bad go away to Jail..."
For ****'s sake, I seem to be talking to a child!!!! Are you serious?
- by jefleshman November 16, 2009 6:00 AM EST
Can you provide all the UK Police interrogation procedures used when they detain a "suspect"?
Do they use sleep deprivation or adjustment? Environmental manipulation when questioning?
---------------------
Look up the procedures for yourself, you lazy ****, or use what little common sense you might have! I'll give you a clue....... the UK is FAR more civilised than the USA.
- What is wrong with a nice trimmed hair cut and being clean shaven?
So, I am (and Muslims in the US Military are being tortured? Is that what you are saying?
Not to mention, for personal hygiene and medical reasons; lice and such...sounds like it would be ok to me. But others would claim that a nice trim and clean shaven would be considered inhuman and torture... you see how stupid this argument is? Trying to use one document to justify everything...it is the same as religious fanatics trying to use the Bible or Qur'an the same way!
- by jefleshman November 16, 2009 6:00 AM EST
I am glad we agree. Oh, wait by the document that is so perfectly clear and interpreted only one way (I am being sarcastic) it may be considered inhuman and perceived as "torture" by the detainee and by the Geneva Conventions (GC).
Like you and your singular examples you like to throw out to the reading audience, you want to use only the GC and I want to use FM 34-52 which I also have to use the GC and I also have to use International Law and I also have to use Rules of Engagement and I also have to use Host Nation law and I also have to use US Government Law...
and so on and so on.
That is why I am glad I am not a lawyer and not an interrogator... It is not as simple as you think.
-------------------------
OK then, what's complicated about water-boarding? I say it is NOT permitted under the Geneva Conventions. What do YOU say? Is it or isn't it?
- You asked me question 1 before and the answer is still perfectly obvious - the Geneva Conventions. What the hell did you think they're for? Wiping your backside? Maybe you haven't abused any prisoners yourself, but you work for an organisation that DELIBERATELY breaks the Geneva Conventions, and you have just admitted that you have a problem with that! How can you possibly continue? Don't you have any personal morals or integrity?
- The Liberals just love that these terrorists are given full US citizen rights. Why parade them in New York? New York has a HUGE BULLSEYE ON IT NOW! (Thanks to liberals and Obama.) When the next terror happens in New York you may as well say the government invited it. Weak leadership = happy terrorists. Shut those 4 mosques down and that skyscraper that launders money for terror. It is a start. If this trial doesn't become about torture and terrorists rights, then I'll eat my words. If they are convicted speedily and dealt with I for one will be surprised and will eat my words. BUT IF THIS BECOMES A TRIAL ABOUT BUSH AND INTELLIGENCE/TORTURE TACTICS, All you liberals owe us an apology. This is what the terrorists want this to be about. Is this what you want this to be about?
- Reply to this comment
- Fink,
If the 5 mentioned in this article are found guilty, will you stop crying foul?
Or will continue to find something else to complain about?
Prove me wrong, I bet you will still complain and defend them!
Got to go for now, take care and smile once in a while Fink... the world is not all bad! - Reply to this comment
-
- by jefleshman November 15, 2009 12:46 PM EST
If the 5 mentioned in this article are found guilty, will you stop crying foul?
----------------------
Of course not! Have you not read ANYTHING I've written? I will only be satisfied when ALL those people detained by America are given EXACTLY the same rights as an American criminal suspect, and those who have not are properly compensated and given a full apology.
No, the world is not all bad. For once I agree with you! Some of it is astoundingly good and so are some of the people in it. I have had the privilege to meet a few, and one or two were from America. The real question is whether the world is REALLY better as a consequence of your 'war on terror', which you continue to support. Please answer that in the privacy of your own conscience.
- by jefleshman November 15, 2009 12:46 PM EST
- by jefleshman November 15, 2009 12:01 PM EST
Who is Binyam Mohamed? He sounds like a big deal in the UK (Laughing)
--------------------------------
You think it's FUNNY to lock an innocent man up for years and torture him???????????? - Reply to this comment
-
- Fink,
Laughing... I am Laughing at your ignorance! Not the situation, which you only read about (When I googled his name all the stories were from the UK).
In this case I had to read about too. And provided you with a good look into "WHAT" this dude was going to do with his AQI (terrorist)training.
Keep defending your friends Fink! It is ok to stick by your friends.
- Why is it that the only way you can attack my arguments is to try to imply that I approve of terrorism?
The only 'facts' you can muster are unattributed accounts. Read what he has ACTUALLY said, not what some trash online magazine claims he said whilst being detained and tortured.
Come on...... WHAT DID HE DO TO WARRANT BEING LOCKED UP FOR YEARS AND TORTURED?
- Fink,
- Fink I LOVE how you will take one to very few cases to justify ALL detentions as everyone is innocent and cry "there was no reason to detain".
Again, you are a special person who has never served in the military while in combat.
Lets see all the detention examples:
1. Shoting Mortars/rockets
2. Firing Direct fire weapons (PRGs and AK47s)
3. Setting up IEDs and Making IEDs
4. Internally financing and facilitation of the Terrorist network
5. Suicide Bomber with the frigging vests in their homes or vehicles
6. Participating in planning attacks against the Gov't Of Afghanistan
7. Providing sanctuary to the terrorists (trying to hide them after they attack us)
And the list goes on and on
YOU ARE SPECIAL and live in a "Fink World" where reality doesn't come into play. Seriously, do you think we just randomly detain someone? If so there is no use even continuing responding to your "Special Posts" - Reply to this comment
-
- by jefleshman November 15, 2009 11:06 AM EST
Lets see all the detention examples: [Note "ALL"]
1. Shoting Mortars/rockets
2. Firing Direct fire weapons (PRGs and AK47s)
.... etc.
----------------
So which of these 'offences' did Binyam Mohamed commit that justified his imprisonment and torture? He is not just one example, he's the first of MANY that I can ask you about................ answer this one first and then we can move on to some more.
Come on John, you're way out of your depth, but far more importantly you're simply one of the bad guys now. Why not admit it and try to make amends?
P.S. Your update on ancestry.com after I criticised it is even funnier!
- Fink,
You are special... Seriously, there have been by 'your accounts' thousands of detainees and you choose one dude... so how about the thousand others...
I do not even know who B. Mohamed is? I have to look him up on the internet.
So to be "out of depth"... The same goes for you... you only read about stuff and have no REAL examples to draw your OWN conclusions... you have to REALLY on the media and OTHERS to give you answers.
How about Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and four other Guantanamo Bay detainees
-----------------------------
Who is Binyam Mohamed? He sounds like a big deal in the UK (Laughing)
SOURCE:http://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2009/02/binyam_mohamed_the_f.php
Some press reports have repeated the claim that Mohamed went to Afghanistan before the September 11 attacks for the purpose of kicking his drug habit. This is a flimsy alibi, to say the least. Why would anyone go to the heroin capital of the world to get away from drugs? In fact, there is no doubt that Mohamed traveled to Afghanistan in June 2001 to receive training in an al Qaeda camp. Mohamed admitted this to the personal representative assigned to handle his case at Guantánamo. Mohamed did not testify at his hearing at Guantánamo, but his personal representative submitted a memo on his behalf. The memo indicates that Mohamed "admitted items 3A1-4 on the UNCLASS summary of evidence." That is a reference to the unclassified summary-of-evidence memo that was prepared by the US government for Mohamed's case.
The items Mohamed admitted include the following:
1. The detainee is an Ethiopian who lived in the United States from 1992 to 1994, and in London, United Kingdom, until he departed for Pakistan in 2001.
2. The detainee arrived in Islamabad, Pakistan, in June 2001, and traveled to the al Farouq training camp in Afghanistan, to receive paramilitary training.
3. At the al Farouq camp, the detainee received 40 days of training in light arms handling, explosives, and principles of topography.
4. The detainee was taught to falsify documents, and received instruction from a senior al Qaeda operative on how to encode telephone numbers before passing them to another individual.
At a minimum, therefore, we know that Mohamed has admitted being an al Qaeda-trained operative.
Mohamed claims that he was not going to use his skills against America. Mohamed told his personal representative that "he went for training to fight in Chechnya, which was not illegal." In 2005, Mohamed's lawyer echoed this explanation in an interview with CNN. "He wanted to see the Taliban with his own eyes," Mohamed's lawyer claimed. "I am not saying he never went to any Islamic camp," the lawyer conceded, but he "didn't go to any camp to blow up Americans."
- You simply copied from an article THAT HAS NO REFERENCES WHATSOEVER. How about some facts? What would YOU admit if you were being tortured?
- Fink,
The report seems to punch your "what about" in the stomach as the air goes out now doesnt it?
So who is Binyam Mohamed? Sounds like a dude who wanted to kill by IEDs in Chechnya?
And you want to defend this guy?
WOW kinda puts you as an AQI Sympathizer...
NOW I understand... You Hate the US and want all "your" people free
- Fink,
I hope you go to the British Government and request Binyam Mohammed to stay in your home the rest of his life... Since you believe him to be Soooo innocent!
- The fact is that he never actually went to Chechnya....... but are you seriously criticising someone for saying that he wanted to fight against Russian oppression?????? Have you heard a phrase about pots and kettles?
- Fink apply that to you and I... you are critizing me for defending those who cannot, while you are defending the same people who I am fighting against?
You are special.
- by jefleshman November 15, 2009 12:22 PM EST
I hope you go to the British Government and request Binyam Mohammed to stay in your home the rest of his life... Since you believe him to be Soooo innocent!
-----------------
He is innocent and he lives very close to where my parents live, and I am perfect happy with that, as are they.
- by jefleshman November 15, 2009 12:38 PM EST
Fink apply that to you and I... you are critizing me for defending those who cannot, while you are defending the same people who I am fighting against?
You are special.
----------------------
Forget the meaningless "You are special" rubbish. It's a waste of space.
I'm not criticizing you for defending anyone, I'm criticising the METHODS you're using. Don't you understand the difference?
- by jefleshman November 15, 2009 11:06 AM EST
- It's a sad time in the US when people cannot see Obama for who he really is. He's undoing everything America has stood for. Wake-up CBS and stop praising the Muslim bent on destroying us..
- Reply to this comment
-
- Oh... according to you?
By the way -- one thing America stands for is freedom and that INCLUDES freedom of religion. If you don't know that, read the Constitution... and then YOU wake up!
- Agreed Velma.
This is a step in the right direction. I would have much rather seen them stay and tried in GB by Military Courts but either way, to have them go to trial is the right direction.
- by jefleshman November 15, 2009 11:22 AM EST
This is a step in the right direction. I would have much rather seen them stay and tried in GB by Military Courts but either way, to have them go to trial is the right direction.
---------------------
Why? What's wrong with US federal courts?..... and how many of them do you think should go in trial? All of them? Some of them? What about the thousands held in the other jails in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere?
I though you previously said that they are prisoners of war? If so, they should NOT be given a trial, because they are NOT suspected of a crime. They should be held under the Geneva Convention conditions until the end of the war, and then released.
Which is it to be?
- Fink,
You are truly special and cannot understand.
1. All should have a trial (in time - which they will)
2. I personally think in the military courts at GB for the GB detainees
3. Nothing wrong with the Fed Courts, it just allows them to have a platform to "feed the Finks in this world"
4. Again if they are found guilty will you stop crying?
- by jefleshman November 15, 2009 12:07 PM EST
All should have a trial (in time - which they will)
------------------
So, do you therefore agree that they are NOT prisoners of war?
I notice you couldn't bring yourself to put the word "fair" before "trial"!!!..... but you're wrong anyway, which time will prove.
- Fink yes they are entitled to a "FAIR" Trial.
And Again these are terrorist, Call them what you want and I will call them what I want... Agreed?
- Oh... according to you?
- by jefleshman November 15, 2009 9:46 AM EST
After time and investigation, it may be found, that the individual just so happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.
----------------------
You means after 5 years in a cage and hundreds of torture sessions, you might decide that they were just "in the wrong place at the wrong time"!!!!!!!!!!!! No wonder the rest of the world despises you! - Reply to this comment
-
- Laughing at you Fink
How about the detained Coalition Soldiers or NGO detainees the terrorist have? Do you apply the same response to them... Ooops Nevermind, they have already been killed without a trial...
Yes good example Fink. You are special!
- by jefleshman November 15, 2009 10:13 AM EST
How about the detained Coalition Soldiers or NGO detainees the terrorist have? Do you apply the same response to them... Ooops Nevermind, they have already been killed without a trial...
------------------------
So you think the conduct of foul murderers is the example America should follow, do you? ........... What does that make you?
- Laughing at you Fink
- by Empire-George November 14, 2009 11:07 PM EST
Yes, I completely agree.....here some of my comments....the point is, that this is not a simple "criminal" but a direct large scale organized attack on our military headquarters at the Pentagon, an attempt at our Capital, and a sucessful attack on our financial centers in NY....so what is the justification for trying him/them in NY, which opens up the possibility of jury nullifation and them skating....military attacks on our country, shouldn't be dealt with in a civilan court, but a classified military tribunal, to retain the secrecy and intel, against the enemy, instead of a mockery trial....
-----------------------------------------
Joe, I agree 100% with you. But that is not the case now. They will be tried in NYC and you know what... If I would pick a place in the US that would be it for these individuals! - Reply to this comment
- by Empire-George November 14, 2009 11:12 PM EST
jfleshman..this is my opinion, do you agree from your perspective ?
by finkfurst November 15, 2009 4:50 AM EST
------------------------------------------
Fink and Empire
We do not detain for no reason.
After time and investigation, it may be found, that the individual just so happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.
BUT and that ia a HUGH BUT, that is the exception to the norm. At least we have a justice system that finds the truth and holds people accountable for it.
Fink, I assume based on your response that everyone should just be sent free who are at GB and Bagram?
That is like me saying that all people in the WORLD who are in jail because of one or two people wrongly accused and found guilty should go free!
Again. We just do not go around and pick up an ole Afghan Citizen or Foreigner and accuse them of being a terrorist. Really, get over it.
The year is 2009 and going on 2010 in a few months. Lets move forward and stop the "generalizations"... like "you Americans".
There is NOW 44 different Troop Contributing Nations in Afghanistan. Yes, there is!It is called a Coalition, we are just a part of a TEAM of Countries here willing to do work you are not willing to do yourself. I have not heard one time where you are trying to help.
Fink, I guess you are just mad at the world. Even when the terrorists are going on trial you still complain.
Talk about think skins, you need to put one on. You are the exception to the rule when it goes to your thoughts on America. America is very well respected and very much a place desired to live.
(What was it 700 Million want to switch countries to become Americans and we lead the world in desired places to live - Hmmmmmm And where was your country in that list?)
SOURCE: http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20091103/lf_afp/migrationusafricaasiaeurope
Have a Great Day Everyone! - Reply to this comment
- Five trials - five death penalties. It's as simple as that. The evidence is overwhelming even without the water boarding. We finally have a president with the guts to put these guys on trial. Let's watch and cheer!
- Reply to this comment
-
- by sandy19731 November 15, 2009 9:29 AM EST
Five trials - five death penalties. It's as simple as that. The evidence is overwhelming........
-------------------
So what's the point of a trial? Why not just shoot them in the back of the head right now?
- by jefleshman November 15, 2009 9:49 AM EST
Becuase we are not like the ones you support Fink.
--------------------
You know very well that I don't support terrorism, so that statement is simply to make yourself look better on an anonymous forum......... HOW JUVENILE AND PATHETIC CAN YOU GET!
- And you know sandy's comment, was a belief based upon no evidence that they believe the individuals are guilty... so how does your comment look?
Pathetic? Yes I would say so.
- by jefleshman November 15, 2009 10:08 AM EST
And you know sandy's comment, was a belief based upon no evidence that they believe the individuals are guilty... so how does your comment look?
---------------------
It wasn't a comment, it was a question, to which I have a very clear answer, but apparently neither you nor sandy19731 do........
- by jefleshman November 15, 2009 10:56 AM EST
Give them a trial... which they are getting, and still your upset? Why is that?
----------------------
Which ONLY FIVE out of THOUSANDS are getting, and only after many years of illegal imprisonment and torture! THAT'S WHY I'M UPSET!!!!! Can you imagine how the countless numbers of their friends, relatives and countrymen feel?
Can you REALLY not understand that?
- Thousands? Were do you get that information? There is maybe 1000 total between GB and Bagram.
Yes I can understand. But I also understand they play soccer and have a bed and 3 square a day, plus their family knows where they are at. Not to mention better medical care they have ever received in their lives.
This is not justification, it is just something you fail to acknowledge. War is War and you know who you should talk too... the parents of the NGOs and Coalition Soliders and the Families of the Afghans who son, daughter, brother, husband and so on who do not know where their loved one is... where they have taken them or if they are still alive!
So to just sit here and Bash us... is very dumb on your part.
Again, they will get their time in court. When they are found guilty will you then say their detention was justified? Or would you still argue and cry foul?
My guess, you tell me if I am worng... you will still find soemthing to complain about!
- by sandy19731 November 15, 2009 9:29 AM EST
- finkfurst, I hope you understand that the few examples of people being unjustly detained or aggressively interrogated for information to save lives and prevent next attacks on us,.......these few are a very small number compared to the huge number of total prisoners or detainees in a war theater....it's nothing....you and the left use these few examples to try an portray America unfairly....people get released and your still cryin....many released returned to re-plan their next ____
- Reply to this comment
-
- I'm very pleased that you admit that people have been "unjustly detained", but if you think that many thousands is a "very small number" then you are a fool.
Of course the wider issue is that you idiot Americans don't know or don't care what the rest of the world thinks about you because of your violent injustice, and the long-term consequences of that....... when are you next going on a foreign vacation? Don't forget to pack your extra-thick skin!
- I'm very pleased that you admit that people have been "unjustly detained", but if you think that many thousands is a "very small number" then you are a fool.
- by finkfurst November 14, 2009 4:48 PM EST
by jefleshman November 14, 2009 1:55 PM EST
Fink,
FYI we do not just at random go and detain someone here in Afghanistan... you are sick if you think we do. We have VERY good reasons.
----------------------------
Really? So what were the reasons for detaining all the men who have now been released without charge?
_________________
May I comment? there may be reasons why the military/government felt that these individuals detained were a direct threat to security, therefore they may require detainment in a war situation, but may not rise to the level of a criminal offense across the planet in American courts....jfleshman..this is my opinion, do you agree from your perspective ? - Reply to this comment
-
- by Empire-George November 14, 2009 11:12 PM EST
May I comment? there may be reasons why the military/government felt that these individuals detained were a direct threat to security,
---------------
"there may be reasons why the military/government felt ....."? Do you seriously think that is adequate justification to lock a innocent man up for 5 years and torture him? If you think it's adequate justification, why is it NOT also adequate justification to lock up an American citizen?
Even if you DO subscribe to your unjust concept, the truth is that since these men have been released it has emerged that THERE WERE NO GOOD SECURITY REASONS. If you disagree - NAME ONE CASE...........
- by Empire-George November 14, 2009 11:12 PM EST
- If these terrorists are taken to trial on WAR ISSUES, then it exposes the side they are on> Who? Muslim extremists. Where? Here there everywhere. Why? Cause they hate us and can't stand us living. When? It has happened and always will happen unless dealt with in a large way. .........If these terrorists are taken to trial on CIVIL ISSUES, then this becomes a trial about violation of civil rights and George Bush. Obama has made the decision that suits him and his party best and also those that hate us.
- Reply to this comment
-
- Yes, I completely agree.....here some of my comments....the point is, that this is not a simple "criminal" but a direct large scale organized attack on our military headquarters at the Pentagon, an attempt at our Capital, and a sucessful attack on our financial centers in NY....so what is the justification for trying him/them in NY, which opens up the possibility of jury nullifation and them skating....military attacks on our country, shouldn't be dealt with in a civilan court, but a classified military tribunal, to retain the secrecy and intel, against the enemy, instead of a mockery trial....
- Why are we allowing these nut cases the liberties reserved for american citizens?? these nuts are foreign enemies that attacked us, they should be tried in a international tribunal just like the nazi's were in nuremburg,, these are crimes of war, what else would you call it?? they have no regard for human life, so what good is the death penalty?? we would be making them hero's for the other nut cases, if nothing else take them to their own country and punish them with their own customs, whatever that might be, but im sure it would be a more effective punishment, they dont deserve the rights of our constitution, our leaders look like fools,, again,
- Reply to this comment
-
- Unfortunately, last year, the Supreme Court, with the help of Liberal Activist Justices, ruled that any enemy combatants, regardless of where they were captured and why, have all the rights of an American citizens.
- If we are afraid that our justice system is not up to the task, then the terrorists have won. I don't have 100% faith in our justice system, frankly I don't think they'll get a fair trial. But, I also don't care too much, if you think a jury in NY is going to let these guys off, you're the crazy ones.
I find it amazing that American Legislators don't believe in the American Judicial System. My God! Why don't they change it if they believe it isn't fair!
- What's the big rush to close Gitmo? What? Because the World thinks we're now Nazi's? So what - let them deal with their terrorists the way they want and let us deal with ours the way we want. Having a bed, three squares, the right to pray the Koran 'til it falls apart and the safety of not being shot at isn't enough? Hell, short of conjugal visits what more do they want? They're going to make a mockery of our civilian justice system and incur the wrath of Jihadists the world over by their testimony - we can't block everything. They'll call for "Allahu Akbar!" every chance they get - what? We're going to gag them? Do the families really think they're going to get a chance to confront them? And say what? Certainly not what's really on their minds. The ones who did the real killing are already dead. Those on trial are merely the planners and there's lots of room for them to get off when proof is necessary. Circumstantial won't get the death penalty. These are merely proxy stand ins for the real murderers. There better be a wealth of evidence that's admissable to the courts and even so - the Supreme Court couldn't decide about these "combatants" before - what makes one think they'll be able to decide now? What guarantee is there of real justice? If they beat the rap with the aid of the American Constitution - how will Holder or Obama stand the vitriol of the American People? It looks as though we need a whole new section of Law dealing with these Jihadists, we won't have the luxury of making it up as we go along on these first cases from Gitmo. At least at Gitmo we're saving them from the past. Are the civilian courts really their future?
- Reply to this comment
-
- They can only make a mockery of our civilian justice system if it is indeed worthy of mockery.
Have some faith in our great system!!
- Total dog & pony show. The terrorist "detainees" have already plead guilty. Holder's law firm reprents at least 17 of these scum and will use this as a platform for bashing Bush and anyone else they want to propaganize about to steer the national dialogue away from Zero's mistakes.
This farce and twisting of our justice system is pure politics and about money. How much the lawyers can rip us off for and how much damage they can attempt to inflict on the Republicrats.
Holder never, ever should have been confirmed as AG after all of his stunts under Clinton.
- They can only make a mockery of our civilian justice system if it is indeed worthy of mockery.
Mike Huckabee on GOP "rock stars," 2012, health care reform and more.
