Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Terrorism Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Khalid Sheikh Muhammad – enemy combatant status determination
Ashley-the-man    3/15/2007 12:24:12 PM
So now starts the process for the disposition of the biggest criminal/enemy combatant the U.S. has ever had in custody. He is a notch above his nephew Ramzi Yousef and below bin-Laden who may be sleeping with the worms. Summary of the hearing to determine the status of Khalid Sheikh Muhammad PRESIDENT: Remain seated and come to order. Go ahead, recorder. RECORDER: This Tribunal is being conducted at 1328 March 10, 2007 on board U.S. Naval Base Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. The following personnel are present: … PRESIDENT: This Tribunal is convened by order of the Director, Combatant Status Review Tribunals under the provisions of the Order of 22 February 2007. This Tribunal will determine whether Khalid Sheikh Muhammad meets the criteria to be designated as an enemy combatant against the United States or its coalition partners or otherwise meets the criteria to be designated as an enemy combatant. PRESIDENT: Recorder, please read the unclassified summary of evidence for the record. But before you proceed, Khalid Sheikh Muhammad, let me remind you that you must not comment on this evidence at this time. You will be provided with an opportunity shortly to provide any comments that you would like. Reocorder, please proceed. RECORDER: The following facts support the determination that the Detainee is an enemy combatant: Time to link to a pdf file provides a transcript of the hearing.
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
PlatypusMaximus       3/15/2007 3:22:37 PM
A confession is good, but I'd much rather see him spill his guts.
Quote    Reply

reefdiver       3/15/2007 4:09:42 PM
In his case I'd rather see him tried as a common criminal, given a fair trial, and then humanely put down with a lethal injection. On the other hand, life in solitary confinement with no hope of parole would be a much crueler and more appropriate sentence.
So if he's declared an enemy combatant, does that imply he can someday be released and repatriated to his own country? Don't want to see that happen.
Quote    Reply

Ashley-the-man       3/15/2007 5:43:51 PM
Funny how at my Lions Club meeting today we just had the local ACLU representative as a speaker.  He never quite gave a difinitive answer but when I mentioned that KSM claimed that he was an enemy soldier, that he had sworn Bay'aat to bin-Ladin and that after the Jihad of 1998 he was at war with the U.S.  The representative said "well he can claim anything he wants." 
A lot of truth to that statement.  I would personally like to see KSM be tried in civilian court as a criminal.  This court would open up the possibility of investigating the activities of the FBI counter terrorism department of the 1980's-90 and the action of the Justice Department.  A true show trial could take one to two years to complete and COULD and SHOULD be the biggest in U.S. history.  It could lead to a reopening of the 911 Commission with the hope that different and impartial commissioners would to the investigation.  The original commission was composed of members who should have been witnesses and perhaps defendants. 
Who would oppose a civil trial for KSM.  Well the administration who is reacting to the failures of the DOJ, FBI, and Clinton Administration to treat terrorism as criminal acts.  With the FBI acting as a criminal investigation agency it could not also act as a counter terrorism entity.
The FBI and DOJ would oppose a civil trial UNLESS they can stack the deck and put in their people who have the most to cover up and would steer the trial awar from uncovering their gross failures during the 1990's. 
The success of al-Qaeda came from understanding the U.S. bureaucracies and exploiting them as no enemy has before.  They were like someone trained in Judo who uses the strength of the adversary to their advantage.  The bureaucracies
Quote    Reply

Ashley-the-man    Was Osama bin-Laden overrated?   3/18/2007 1:52:44 AM
 Was Osama bin-Laden overrated?

 KSM admits to just about any and every terrorist act that is commonly ascribed to al-Qaeda. Bin-Laden may have been the sponsor who supplied money and cannon fodder, but Mohammad may have been the driving force that got the ball rolling. Actually, the WT 93 bombing was the work of Ramzi Yousef who conceived and started to carry out the Bojinka plot, plotted to kill the Pope, Bhutto, a number of other plots and finally the idea behind the using suicide bombers to hijack jetliners. Take these two out of the picture and you have a rather modest resume for bin-Laden. 

 What if Shaikh Mohammad had been captured with Ramzi Yousef in the same apartment in 1995. 911 would have never happed and most of the other acts KSM claimed to have coordinated would not have occurred. Assuming that everything that he admitted can indeed be attributed to him.

 Now comes the trial. Should KSM be tried by a military tribunal, or in a civilian court as a criminal? I would like to see a criminal trial as would provide an airing of the actions of the FBI and DOJ that allowed KSM to avoid capture for nearly eight years.

Quote    Reply

PlatypusMaximus       3/18/2007 1:30:14 PM
Can you imagine the circus? We'd have people trying to get bush on the stand for warcrimes as well,
I'd still pay to see it, fair or not.
I think fair is having a panel of judges decide whether or not he is of any more intelligence value and then returning his corpse to his family.
Quote    Reply

PlatypusMaximus       3/18/2007 1:36:09 PM
I read your points regarding this on the Iraq board. Definatley lose-lose for the victims families, no matter how it gets  tried.
Quote    Reply

Ashley-the-man    Khalid coming to the scene of the crime   11/13/2009 11:38:35 AM
Khalid Sheikh Mohammad and four co-conspirators will be coming to New York to stand trial for the 911 attacks, according to Attorney General Eric Holder in a news conference today.
News analysts estimate that it could take ten years to conclude the trial.  Holder said the government would seek the highest penalty. 
If this takes ten years, it could stretch over two or three administrations. 
The 911 victims have already expressed strong opposition of moving the plotters of the attack to New York. 
The Obama administration has opened itself to naging criticism for the remainder of its term. 
The legal issues surrounding this case will be argued for generations. 
Talk amoungst yourselves.  
Quote    Reply

Patton       11/29/2010 1:45:10 PM
This is a crock...
Under the Rules of Land Warfare anyone who bears arms against a military organization engaged in hostilities is subject to arrest as a "partisan, guerrilla, or irregular" and further subject to summary execution.  Bush declared a Global War On Terrorism with consent of Congress, so why don't the Rules apply ???  Why is all this due process protection being extended to Terrorists along with legal formality ???
1.  The USG does not want Terrorists to retaliate in kind;
2.  The USG wants to present an appearance of fairness and justice under the [civilian] Rule of Law; and
3.  The USG is avoiding international condemnation as a religious persecutor.
It's a CROCK, but there is no other real way to handle the situation without inciting more resistence.  The unfortunate aspect of this is that attorneys for Terrorists get to see highly classified information.  And where sources are concerned, their identities will never see the light of a day in court.  That means evidence is not admitted and possible dismissals for lack of it. 
Quote    Reply