US Govt To Seek Death Penalty For 9/11 Detainees

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

MrsSpringsteen

Blue Crack Addict
Joined
Nov 30, 2002
Messages
29,289
Location
Edge's beanie closet
By PAULINE JELINEK, Associated Press Writer

The Pentagon is planning to charge six detainees at Guantanamo Bay for the Sept. 11 terror attacks on America and seek the death penalty.

Defense Department spokesman Bryan Whitman said an announcement of the charges could come Monday.

Military prosecutors also will ask for the death penalty for the attacks that killed nearly 3,000 Americans, according to a second official who spoke on condition of anonymity because the charges had not been announced.

Among those held at Guantanamo is Khalid Sheik Mohammed, the suspected mastermind of the attack six years ago in which hijacked planes were flown into buildings in New York and Washington. Five others are expected to be named in sworn charges.

"The department has been working diligently to prepare cases and bring charges against a number of individuals who have been involved in some of the most grievous acts of violence and terror against the United States and our allies," Whitman said.

Prosecutors have been working for years to assemble the case against suspects in the attacks that prompted the Bush administration to launch its global war on terror.

"The prosecution team is close to moving forward on referring charges on a number of individuals," Whitman said, declining to name the defendants.

The New York Times reported in Monday's editions that the others are Mohammed al-Qahtani, the man officials have labeled the 20th hijacker; Ramzi bin al-Shibh, said to have been the main intermediary between the hijackers and leaders of Al Qaeda; Ali Abd al-Aziz Ali, known as Ammar al-Baluchi, a nephew of Khalid Sheik Mohammed, who has been identified as Mohammed's lieutenant for the 2001 operation; al-Baluchi's assistant, Mustafa Ahmed al-Hawsawi; and Walid bin Attash, a detainee known as Khallad, who investigators say selected and trained some of the hijackers.

The men would be tried in the military tribunal system that was set up by the administration shortly after the start of the counterterror war and has been widely criticized for it rules on legal representation for suspects, hearings behind closed doors and past allegations of inmate abuse at Guantanamo. Original rules allowed the military to exclude the defendant from his own trial, permitted statements made under torture, and forbade appeal to an independent court; but the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the system in 2006 and a revised plan has included some additional rights.

Defense lawyers still criticize the system for it's secrecy.

The decision to seek the death penalty also is likely to draw criticism from within the international community. A number of countries, including U.S. allies, have said they would object to the use of capital punishment for their nationals held at Guantanamo.

Officials plan to hold the trial in a specially constructed court at Guantanamo that will allow lawyers, journalists and some others to be present, but leave relatives of Sept. 11 victims and others to watch the trial through closed-circuit broadcasts.

Khalid Sheik Mohammed was among 15 so-called "high-value detainees" who were held at length by the CIA in secret overseas prisons — some subject to what critics call torture — before being handed over to the military in 2006.

In Guantanamo Bay hearings that have been criticized as unfair, he confessed to the 9/11 attack and a chilling string of other terror plots last March.

"I was responsible for the 9/11 operation from A to Z," Mohammed said in a statement read during the session, according to hearing transcripts later released by the Pentagon.
 
The normal system of justice is flawed enough that the death penalty shouldn't ever exist.

But this, this is a joke of a justice system. :|

And I already know the emotional responses that some will give, they will find pleasure in the fact that these men will be killed, and they'll call it 'justice'. But if you can live with yourself knowing you sent someone to death on what will be nearly a puppet trial, then so be it.
 
The fact that we can say we live in a civilized society and then have a justice system that allows it to kill another human being is absolutely barbaric and criminal in itself. :|
 
The fact that they throw these guys in Guantanamo Bay and then bother with a trial at all is laughable :lol:
 
BonoVoxSupastar said:
The normal system of justice is flawed enough that the death penalty shouldn't ever exist.

But this, this is a joke of a justice system. :|

And I already know the emotional responses that some will give, they will find pleasure in the fact that these men will be killed, and they'll call it 'justice'. But if you can live with yourself knowing you sent someone to death on what will be nearly a puppet trial, then so be it.

I know you mean me BVS......and that's allright because you are absolutely RIGHT.

Well done!! Hopefully this will be just the beginning of bringing the masterminds of 9/11 to face justice...yes...JUSTICE!

....and yes, I will sleep very well tonight.......

and again.....it boggles the mind that you don't want the criminals of 9/11 to be brought to trial - or at least that's the impression that I got from this post - I apologize if I'm wrong.
 
Last edited:
Who said they don't want them to be brought to trial?

Executions may be carried out at Gitmo

By Michael Melia and Andrew O. Selsky, Associated Press Writers | February 12, 2008

SAN JUAN, Puerto Rico --If six suspected terrorists are sentenced to death at Guantanamo Bay for the Sept. 11 attacks, U.S. Army regulations that were quietly amended two years ago open the possibility of execution by lethal injection at the military base in Cuba, experts said Tuesday.

Any executions would probably add to international outrage over Guantanamo, since capital punishment is banned in 130 countries, including the 27-nation European Union.

Conducting the executions on U.S. soil could open the way for the detainees' lawyers to go to U.S. courts to fight the death sentences. But the updated regulations make it possible for the executions to be carried out at Guantanamo.

David Sheldon, an attorney and former member of the Navy's legal corps, said an execution chamber at Guantanamo would be largely beyond the reach of U.S. courts.

"I think that's the administration's idea, to try to use Guantanamo as a base to not be under the umbrella of the federal district courts," he said. "If one is detained in North Carolina or South Carolina in a Navy brig, one could conceivably file a petition of habeas corpus and because of where they're located, invoke the jurisdiction of a federal court."

The condemned men could even be buried at Guantanamo. A Muslim section of the cemetery at Guantanamo has been dedicated by an Islamic cultural adviser, said Bruce Lloyd, spokesman for the Guantanamo Naval Station. Among those buried elsewhere at the cemetery are U.S. servicemen.

"A small area of the cemetery has been fenced off and remains ready for the burial of any Muslim who may die here and not be repatriated to another country, for whatever reason," Lloyd told The Associated Press.

When two Saudis and a Yemeni committed suicide at Guantanamo in 2006, military officers said the men could be buried at the cemetery, but the remains were instead sent back to their homelands.

Up until recently, experts on military law said, it was understood that military regulations required executions to be carried out by lethal injection at Fort Leavenworth in Kansas.

But in January 2006, the Army changed its procedures for military executions, allowing "other locations" to be used. The new regulations say that only the president can approve an execution and that the secretary of the Army will authorize the location.

"Military executions will be by lethal injection," the regulations say.

The last U.S. military execution was in 1961, when President Kennedy signed off on the hanging of Army Pfc. John A. Bennett for the rape and attempted murder of an 11-year-old Austrian girl.

Brig. Gen. Thomas W. Hartmann refused to discuss details on executions when he announced Monday the Pentagon was charging the six Guantanamo detainees and seeking the death penalty.

"We are a long way from determining the details of the death penalty, and when that time comes ... we will follow the law at that time and the procedures that are in place," Hartmann said.

Eugene Fidell, a Washington defense attorney and expert on military law, said Guantanamo Bay could be an execution site, but added that the U.S. would face an international outcry.

"It would be highly controversial because a lot of the world simply doesn't believe in the death penalty any more," Fidell said.

The Bush administration has instructed U.S. diplomats abroad to defend its decision to seek the death penalty for the six men by recalling the executions of Nazi war criminals after World War II.

A four-page cable sent to U.S. embassies and obtained Tuesday by The Associated Press says that execution as punishment for extreme violations of the laws of war is internationally accepted.

The cable points to the 1945-46 Nuremberg war crimes trials in Germany. Twelve of Adolf Hitler's senior aides were sentenced to death at the trials, though not all were executed in the end.

No death chamber is known to exist at Guantanamo, but Scott Silliman, a former Air Force lawyer and who is now a Duke University professor, said the military may decide to build one there. The 2006 Army regulations also call for a viewing room to the death chamber, where at least two news media representatives would be witnesses.

The trial for the six detainees is still months away. And given the slow pace of the military commissions at Guantanamo Bay, verdicts are unlikely before President Bush leaves office next January.

The accused include Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the alleged mastermind of Sept. 11; Mohammed al-Qahtani, whom officials have labeled the 20th hijacker; and Waleed bin Attash, who investigators say selected and trained some of the 19 hijackers.

Many support the use of the death penalty for men blamed for the Sept. 11 attacks.

"If these guys are found guilty, I can't think of any other case more appropriate for the death penalty," said Charles "Cully" Stimson, a senior legal fellow at the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank. "An overwhelming majority of Americans support the death penalty."

Michael Khambatta of the International Committee of the Red Cross said his organization would approve the death penalty only when there are "procedural and judicial guarantees that meet international standards."

Khambatta, who is the deputy head of the ICRC's Washington delegation, declined to comment publicly on whether the ICRC considers the U.S. war-crimes trials fair.
 
You know what scares the shit out of me? That people are cool with the fact that this entire trial is based on evidence obtained through torture (i.e. illegally) and hearsay. Fucking hearsay. Yeah what a big comfort. Justice is served!!!! Let's all rest easy tonight knowing this will never happen again and our loved ones were avenged.
 
unico said:
You know what scares the shit out of me? That people are cool with the fact that this entire trial is based on evidence obtained through torture (i.e. illegally) and hearsay. Fucking hearsay. Yeah what a big comfort. Justice is served!!!! Let's all rest easy tonight knowing this will never happen again and our loved ones were avenged.



but if we don't torture and extract false confessions and then kill them for said false confessions, we're just enabling more torture ... i mean terror! we're enabling more terror!
 
unico said:
You know what scares the shit out of me? That people are cool with the fact that this entire trial is based on evidence obtained through torture (i.e. illegally) and hearsay. Fucking hearsay. Yeah what a big comfort. Justice is served!!!! Let's all rest easy tonight knowing this will never happen again and our loved ones were avenged.

You're so right Unico. It was wrong of them to use torture. They should have sat them down at the Polo lounge at the Beverly Hills hotel and had a nice quiet discussion with them over glasses of wine and a good meal and asked them politely to tell them what they know. For sure that would have worked, right?
 
AchtungBono said:


You're so right Unico. It was wrong of them to use torture. They should have sat them down at the Polo lounge at the Beverly Hills hotel and had a nice quiet discussion with them over glasses of wine and a good meal and asked them politely to tell them what they know. For sure that would have worked, right?



right. because that's how simple it is. either you torture them, or you buy them a chicken salad sandwich and pat them on the head.

come on. that's garbage thinking. you've created a false choice.

that's bullshit.

torture. doesn't. work.

it gets you bad information and it's designed only to enable more torture.
 
AchtungBono said:


You're so right Unico. It was wrong of them to use torture. They should have sat them down at the Polo lounge at the Beverly Hills hotel and had a nice quiet discussion with them over glasses of wine and a good meal and asked them politely to tell them what they know. For sure that would have worked, right?


that's your alternative? next time i commit a crime i hope you get to interrogate me.
 
Last edited:
as per usual, the truth probably lies between both extremes.

of course torture on any level is wrong, and i'm sure more often than not it does force the detainee to say whatever his captures what him to say.

that said, i'm sure it DOES work to some degree.

not saying i agree with it at all, and civilized nations should never resort to it, but i can see why it's done.

that said, i don't give a shit who dies. the people in suits just as often deserve the chair as the people they're sending to fry.

i'll shed my tears for family and friends, you know... people who make a difference in my life.

one of the most hilarious threads i've ever read at this forum was the one that mourned the loss of sadam hussein.

anyway, i'm well off-topic by now, so i'll step aside.
 
unico said:



that's your alternative? next time i commit a crime i hope you get to interrogate me.

lol.....either that or tie you down and force you to watch endless footage of George W. Bush.

........I believe some people would confess to Lincoln's assasination just to stop THAT....:lol:

....




But seriously, you are not dealing with normal prisoners here. You're dealing with the people responsible for 3,000 deaths. There's a special place in hell for them and hopefully they'll get there very soon.

About obtaining so-called false confessions....do you really think the US is stupid enough to take these confessions at face value without substantiating the information? Also, I'm absolutely positive that the government has covered itself very well in terms of legality - I don't think they'd risk getting mistrials or confessions thrown out of court due to "constitutional problems".
 
AchtungBono said:

do you really think the US is stupid enough to take these confessions at face value without substantiating the information?

Yes.


And regarding legality: Guantanamo itself is not legal, except for the US administration.
 
AchtungBono said:
About obtaining so-called false confessions....do you really think the US is stupid enough to take these confessions at face value without substantiating the information?

Please see Exhibit A: Launching a pre-emptive strike under completely false pretext and the congress going along with it.

AchtungBono said:
Also, I'm absolutely positive that the government has covered itself very well in terms of legality - I don't think they'd risk getting mistrials or confessions thrown out of court due to "constitutional problems".

Here's what went down, step-by-step (ooh baby, gonna get to you girrrrrl):

Step 1 - We can have lots of fun: CIA says "We did not torture!"
Step 2 - There's so much we can do: CIA says "We did not waterboard!"
Step 3 - It's just you and me: CIA says "Oh wait, you said WATERboard? OH. Yeah...we did that. But we're not so sure that's torture"
Step 4 - I can give you more: CIA says "You know, after thinking about it, waterboarding may be torture NOW, but it wasn't a few years ago when we did it."
Step 5 - Don't you know that the time has arrived UNHH!: CIA says "New plan guys, new plan. Let's use the legal framework from a few years back to cover our asses, since, you know, waterboarding wasn't illegal then."



Yeah that's right, I just used NKOTB in an FYM thread.
 
Last edited:
but we're good and they're bad.

we can act bad, but it's okay, because we're good, and we only act bad so that people know how good we are.

you see?
 
How any civilized society that calls itself a democracy and believes in justice, can detain people for 6.5 years without trial and at a military base called "CAMP JUSTICE" is just beyond my comprehension.

Any society that allows its government to do this should take a long, hard look at its principles, stop waving their flags so hard, and reexamine what they stand for as a people.
 
Billy Rotten said:
How any civilized society that calls itself a democracy and believes in justice, can detain people for 6.5 years without trial and at a military base called "CAMP JUSTICE" is just beyond my comprehension.

Any society that allows its government to do this should take a long, hard look at its principles, stop waving their flags so hard, and reexamine what they stand for as a people.

Amen. Our justice system has failed in the worst way. The fact that capital punishment is still allowed in any humane place on this earth is absolutely reprehensible. I can't be tolerant or unbiased on this issue. Anyone, anyone who supports capital punishment in any way, shape, or form is a despicable, sorry, pathetic excuse for a human being.
 
AchtungBono said:
But seriously, you are not dealing with normal prisoners here. You're dealing with the people responsible for 3,000 deaths. There's a special place in hell for them and hopefully they'll get there very soon.

You don't know that and never will. That's the bottom line. There's no measure of certainty. Beyond a reasonable doubt and that's it. It's not 100% certain.

It's not 100% certain.
It's not 100% certain.
It's not 100% certain.
It's not 100% certain.
It's not 100% certain.
 
U2isthebest said:


Anyone, anyone who supports capital punishment in any way, shape, or form is a despicable, sorry, pathetic excuse for a human being.

Barack Obama: Position on the Death Penalty

says the death penalty "does little to deter crime" but he supports it for cases in which "the community is justified in expressing the full measure of its outrage."
 
INDY500 said:


Barack Obama: Position on the Death Penalty

says the death penalty "does little to deter crime" but he supports it for cases in which "the community is justified in expressing the full measure of its outrage."

I disagree with him completely. I think he's 100% wrong in that opinion, and I'm very angry that he feels that way. However, there are other issues facing our country and our world right now that are more important (i.e. poverty, environmental/energy, healthcare, education, the war in Iraq, etc.) that I feel he has the right positions and polices on to move this country in the right direction. I think Obama is the leader our country needs right now. That does NOT mean that I blindly follow him or agree with everything he says. That's what the neocons on the far Right do with President Bush, and look where that's gotten them.



ETA: On a personal level, I think it's absolutely wrong and despicable of Obama to support capital punishment even if only for "extreme" cases. However, a president doesn't have much to do with this issue in terms of stopping it or allowing it. That's usally up to the governors of the states. The president can grant pardons, but that would be virtually impossible to do for all death-row inmates.
 
Last edited:
AchtungBono said:


I know you mean me BVS......and that's allright because you are absolutely RIGHT.

Well done!! Hopefully this will be just the beginning of bringing the masterminds of 9/11 to face justice...yes...JUSTICE!

....and yes, I will sleep very well tonight.......

and again.....it boggles the mind that you don't want the criminals of 9/11 to be brought to trial - or at least that's the impression that I got from this post - I apologize if I'm wrong.

It doesn't matter how many times people explain it you, you just never get it.

You have a warped idea of what justice is. Justice is when a someone who has commited a crime is held accountable for having commited that crime. That does not neccesitate death.

Vengance is when you seek to avenge a crime by inflicting an equal or greater amount of damage on the perpetrator of that crime. This is what you are feeling, no matter how many times you call it justice.

Here's the deal: You can never be 100% certain of a person's guilt. And if 100 people are executed, and just one of those people was innocent and wrongly executed, I don't care if the other 99 were the sickest, most monsterous fucks that ever walked the face of the Earth, if that one innocent person was executed, it is simply not worth it.

Prison is meant to be a quarantine - it it supposed to keep criminals out of society. Prison is not the country club you sometimes make it out to be, but even if it was - those 99 sickest, most monsterous fucks can eat three filet minions a day, bath in a jacuzzi, get a full body massage every day, watch television on 60-inch HDTV, etc etc etc AS LONG AS THEY ARE DOING IT ALL WITHIN A LIFE SENTENCE IN THE CONFINES OF A PRISON AND CANNOT RE-ENTER SOCIETY, and that would be just fine with me. Why? Because it would be a small, nay, non-existant price to pay for that one innocent person to be alive, for that one innocent person's kids and spouse and parents to be able to talk to him/her and not mourn his/her unjust death.

You are either ok with sacrificing that one innocent husband/wife, son/daughter, mother/father, uncle/aunt, brother/sister, friend for the so-called satisfaction of seeing the 99 sickest most monsterous fucks get fried, or you're not. You're either ok with killing that innocent person so that you feel like you have had your vengeance(because it is NOT AND NEVER WILL BE justice) on the other 99, or you're not.

It's your choice. You have to sleep at night.
 
AchtungBono said:


But seriously, you are not dealing with normal prisoners here. You're dealing with the people responsible for 3,000 deaths. There's a special place in hell for them and hopefully they'll get there very soon.

Maybe, but maybe not. There's no way to 100% ensure that these are the people responsible for 9/11.

AchtungBono said:

About obtaining so-called false confessions....do you really think the US is stupid enough to take these confessions at face value without substantiating the information? Also, I'm absolutely positive that the government has covered itself very well in terms of legality - I don't think they'd risk getting mistrials or confessions thrown out of court due to "constitutional problems".

Umm, yes. The government has wanted to bring *someone* to justice for 9/11 since the beginning, and whether these are the correct people or not, it makes the government seem like there has been justice served.

As for the government covering itself legally, yeah, it has. Because these were military tribunals. There are very, very different standards and rules in military trials rather than civilian trials. As unico has already mentioned, evidence gathered by torture and hearsay is what the case is being based on. In a civilian court, that would never be considered to reach the standard of evidence.
 
INDY500 said:


Wrong is quite different than "a despicable, sorry, pathetic excuse for a human being."


You're right and, perhaps I used a wrong choice of words. I do stand by that statement though, in the sense that while they may not be despicable human beings, it is despicable, sorry, pathetic and wrong for them to feel the way they do about capital punishment. That's what I should've said in the first place, but I let my emotions get the best of me. I did edit my post before this one, btw, just to give a bit more of an explanation.
 
AchtungBono said:


I know you mean me BVS......and that's allright because you are absolutely RIGHT.

Well done!! Hopefully this will be just the beginning of bringing the masterminds of 9/11 to face justice...yes...JUSTICE!

....and yes, I will sleep very well tonight.......

and again.....it boggles the mind that you don't want the criminals of 9/11 to be brought to trial - or at least that's the impression that I got from this post - I apologize if I'm wrong.

I meant you amongst others.

But how can you make such a leap of logic? :scratch: Where did I say not to bring them to trial? In fact I'm saying the exact opposite, I'm saying bring them to a REAL trial.
 
Back
Top Bottom