Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
United States Discussion Board
Sign In   Return to Topic Page
Subject: NY Trial
appleciderus    11/13/2009 9:24:28 PM
Former mayor Rudy: ?Returning some of the Guantanamo detainees to New York City for trial, specifically Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, has now brought us full circle ? we have regressed to a pre-9/11 mentality with respect to Islamic extremist terrorism,? former Mayor Rudy Giuliani said in a statement. ?Khalid Shaikh Mohammed should be treated like the war criminal he is and tried in a military court. He is not just another murderer, or even a mass murderer. He murdered as part of a declared war against us?America.? Rudy said the same on Cavuto this afternoon. I think as soon as the sheilk's usefulness expires, so should he. Quietly, painfully, and anonymously. Not another 5 year trial with casualties.
 
Quote    Reply

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24   NEXT
buzzard       11/17/2009 1:19:22 PM
Actually, the Geneva Convention does cover some unidentified individuals as partisans.
 
Better check up on your facts for a change. While later provisions of the Geneva Convention do cover such things, the sections to which the United States are signatory do not. We have not ratified any of the later protocols past the 1949 treaty, and those are the ones which deal with partisans. As such, it has no relevance in our courts. 
 
The 1949 treaty is very specific as to whom is a protected individual, and that consists of non combatants and uniformed military personnel. KSM doesn't make either grade. 
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica    @Buzzard   11/17/2009 1:34:05 PM

Actually, the Geneva Convention does cover some unidentified individuals as partisans.

 

Better check up on your facts for a change. While later provisions of the Geneva Convention do cover such things, the sections to which the United States are signatory do not. We have not ratified any of the later protocols past the 1949 treaty, and those are the ones which deal with partisans. As such, it has no relevance in our courts. 


 

The 1949 treaty is very specific as to whom is a protected individual, and that consists of non combatants and uniformed military personnel. KSM doesn't make either grade. 


I did check my facts. Perhaps you should do the same. I SAID THE US COURTS AREN'T DESIGNED TO HANDLE THIS. I ALSO SAID THE "GENEVA CONVENTION" DOES COVER SAID INDIVIDUALS to a certain extent but it still isn't adequate. Also, KSM was captured in Pakistan. Think a bit about why that matters before you respond.

-DA 
 
Quote    Reply

buzzard       11/17/2009 1:45:28 PM
He's being tried in a U.S. court by the provisions of U.S. law. As such only a treaty to which the U.S. is signatory is relevant (as I stated). Mentioning provisions of the Geneva Convention which the U.S. does not ascribe to is utterly irrelevant in this circumstance. As such, you were blathering.
 
You might want to take your own advice about posting after you know the first thing of what you speak. 
 
Then again, why mess with your SOP? It's worked for you so far.
 
Quote    Reply

warpig       11/18/2009 12:01:27 PM

"[Attorney General] Eric Holder's move to try the 9/11 masterminds in Manhattan makes it official: This administration has reverted to pre-9/11 'crime' fighting. Amid all the talk during the attorney general's surreal press conference of the 'crime' committed eight years ago, the 9/11 attack on the Pentagon wasn't even mentioned. Lest anyone forget, the military headquarters of the United States was attacked that day along with the Twin Towers. An entire wedge of the Ring was gutted when the Saudi hijackers slammed American Airlines Flight 77 into it. Nearly 200 military personnel were killed, along with the passengers and crew of the hijacked jet. The jet was a weapon used to attack the very center of our military. That was not a 'crime,' as some say. It was an act of war. And 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, along with the four other al-Qa'ida terrorist co-conspirators Holder wants to try, are no mere criminals. They are enemy combatants -- and should be treated as such. ... Holder clucked that the 'trials will be open to the public and the world.' And they will turn into circuses, playing right into the hands of the enemy. These trials will drag on for years, perhaps even decades, as defense lawyers file endless motions and appeals. Meanwhile, valuable intelligence about interrogation techniques and other methods we've used against al-Qa'ida will be revealed to the enemy during trial discovery. This move to a civilian court makes no sense at all, except viewed through a political prism. ... It will only remind people how much America has shrunk in the last nine months." --Investor's Business Daily...
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica    @Buzzard   11/18/2009 1:20:08 PM

He's being tried in a U.S. court by the provisions of U.S. law. As such only a treaty to which the U.S. is signatory is relevant (as I stated). Mentioning provisions of the Geneva Convention which the U.S. does not ascribe to is utterly irrelevant in this circumstance. As such, you were blathering.
 
You might want to take your own advice about posting after you know the first thing of what you speak. 

Then again, why mess with your SOP? It's worked for you so far.

LOL you've got no idea what you are talking about. U.S. Law as written is not designed for this. Sure we can try him. He'll probably be convicted too. But that isn't the point. You still don't get it. Also, the US DOES ascribe to the Geneva Conventions if not in word certainly in deed abroad. AND FOR GOOD REASON. You haven't seen the ROE or smart cards. Or the way things are conducted in the field. It won't be irrelevant to operators and military personnel who have to do this in the real world rather than arm chair generals on SP who don't get to see how this works for real. 

-DA 
 
Quote    Reply

buzzard       11/18/2009 1:36:35 PM
LOL you've got no idea what you are talking about. U.S. Law as written is not designed for this. Sure we can try him. He'll probably be convicted too. But that isn't the point. You still don't get it. Also, the US DOES ascribe to the Geneva Conventions if not in word certainly in deed abroad. AND FOR GOOD REASON. You haven't seen the ROE or smart cards. Or the way things are conducted in the field. It won't be irrelevant to operators and military personnel who have to do this in the real world rather than arm chair generals on SP who don't get to see how this works for real. 
 
Show me a factual instance in which I am wrong. 
Fact: The U.S. does not ascribe the the section of the Geneva Convention which covers terrorists.
Fact: The treatment of this issue in court will be based on U.S. law and ratified treaty commitments. 
Fact: If the U.S. did actually follow the sections of the later Geneva Convention Protocols, KSM would not have been water boarded. 
 
As I have come to expect, you love to spout off about facts especially when you have no idea of what you speak. 
 
Now I won't deny that U.S. law is going to do a very piss poor job of handling this. In fact I completely agree that this is a disaster in the making. I will say I am pleased to see you recognizing that the big O made a big blunder here.
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica    @Buzzard   11/18/2009 1:52:21 PM

LOL
you've got no idea what you are talking about. U.S. Law as written is
not designed for this. Sure we can try him. He'll probably be convicted
too. But that isn't the point. You still don't get it. Also, the US
DOES ascribe to the Geneva Conventions if not in word certainly in deed
abroad. AND FOR GOOD REASON. You haven't seen the ROE or smart cards.
Or the way things are conducted in the field. It won't be irrelevant to
operators and military personnel who have to do this in the real world
rather than arm chair generals on SP who don't get to see how this
works for real. 

 

Show me a factual instance in which I am wrong. 

Fact: The U.S. does not ascribe the the section of the Geneva Convention which covers terrorists.

Fact: The treatment of this issue in court will be based on U.S. law and ratified treaty commitments. 

Fact: If the U.S. did actually follow the sections of the later Geneva Convention Protocols, KSM would not have been water boarded. 

As I have come to expect, you love to spout off about facts especially when you have no idea of what you speak. 


Now I won't deny that U.S. law is going to do a very piss poor job of handling this. In fact I completely agree that this is a disaster in the making. I will say I am pleased to see you recognizing that the big O made a big blunder here.


Name which actions of KSM constitute terrorism. Also, list where this is covered by US law or the Geneva Convention. Good luck.

-DA 
 
Quote    Reply

buzzard       11/18/2009 2:14:32 PM

Name which actions of KSM constitute terrorism. Also, list where this is covered by US law or the Geneva Convention. Good luck.
 
Good lord, what is the color of the sky in your world? Are you daft enough to say that KSM isn't clearly a terrorist? He was the mastermind behind most Al Qeda operations for years.
 
I have to wonder if this is some devious ploy to destroy your own credibility as a joke or something because it doesn't make one iota of sense. 
 
As for the second request, list where what is covered by U.S. Law? Terrorism? That's covered by law by virtue of the ultimate effects be they property damage or murder. KSM most certainly conspired to commit mass murder, as well as actively aided and abetted it.
 
As for the Geneva Convention, it addresses non military combatants(which would include terrorists) in the later protocols to which we do not ascribe.
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica    @Buzzard   11/18/2009 2:28:47 PM






Name which actions of KSM constitute terrorism. Also, list where this is covered by US law or the Geneva Convention. Good luck.



 

Good lord, what is the color of the sky in your world? Are you daft enough to say that KSM isn't clearly a terrorist? He was the mastermind behind most Al Qeda operations for years.

Again, WHAT ACTIONS OF KSM CONSTITUTE "TERRORISM"? Can you not articulate than? If not then say so.
 
I have to wonder if this is some devious ploy to destroy your own credibility as a joke or something because it doesn't make one iota of sense. 

Thats because you are too stubborn to listen to a subject matter expert. I know I know, you don't think I'm credible anymore because I voted for Obama...lol
 
As for the second request, list where what is covered by U.S. Law? Terrorism? That's covered by law by virtue of the ultimate effects be they property damage or murder. KSM most certainly conspired to commit mass murder, as well as actively aided and abetted it.

Again, SHOW WHAT US LAW KSM VIOLATED. Can you or not?
 
As for the Geneva Convention, it addresses non military combatants(which would include terrorists) in the later protocols to which we do not ascribe.

How would you know? I have sat in the briefings where it was read to us and we were ordered to comply with it. What about you? If it was legal, I'd post the pictures of the "terrorist" I've captured and handled according to these protocols! 

-DA 
 
Quote    Reply

buzzard       11/18/2009 2:59:54 PM
Again, WHAT ACTIONS OF KSM CONSTITUTE "TERRORISM"? Can you not articulate than? If not then say so.
 
Terrorism is illegal not under the moniker of 'terrorist', but under the effects of what it does. I've stated this before. It results in assualt, attempted murder, murder and property damage (as well as conspiracy in regards to the previously mentioned offenses). 

Thats because you are too stubborn to listen to a subject matter expert. I know I know, you don't think I'm credible anymore because I voted for Obama...lol
 
No, the issue here is that you don't make a lick of sense. You passing yourself off as a subject matte expert is what I consider laughable consider how rife with errors your posts are. 
 
As for the second request, list where what is covered by U.S. Law? Terrorism? That's covered by law by virtue of the ultimate effects be they property damage or murder. KSM most certainly conspired to commit mass murder, as well as actively aided and abetted it.

Again, SHOW WHAT US LAW KSM VIOLATED. Can you or not?
 
Can't you read? I just did. He was the planner of a number of terrorist operations. That constitutes conspiracy to commit murder as well as an accessory before and after the fact. Those are criminal offenses. Do I need to draw a diagram or something?

How would you know? I have sat in the briefings where it was read to us and we were ordered to comply with it. What about you? If it was legal, I'd post the pictures of the "terrorist" I've captured and handled according to these protocols! 
 
The fact that the U.S. adheres to the protocols in some aspects of practice but not others is consistent with the fact that we did not sign the treaty. Interrogation of combatants beyond a certain line (which we most certainly have crossed with many of our detainees) is against the convention. We treat prisoners, no matter how they have behaved on the battlefield in a humane manner because it reflects our values, not because it reflects our treaty commitments. 
 
Are you going to deny that we have violated the latter Geneva Protocols? If so, I suspect you'd have an argument with the president of which you are so fond as well as his AG.
 
Quote    Reply
PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24   NEXT



StrategyWorld.com© 1998 - 2012StrategyWorld.com. All rights Reserved. StrategyWorld.com, StrategyPage.com, FYEO, For Your Eyes Only and Al Nofi's CIC are all trademarks of StrategyWorld.com Privacy Policy