Friday, November 13, 2009

'NY trial' for key 9/11 suspects.

This is very good news.

Alleged 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed will be sent from Guantanamo Bay to New York for trial in a civilian court, reports say.

Citing unnamed government officials, the reports said he would be transferred from the US prison camp in Cuba with four other suspects.
US Attorney General Eric Holder is expected to announce the decision later, the officials say. Mr Mohammed has admitted planning the 9/11 attacks, the US military says.
I never understood the reticence of the Bush administration to put these guys on trial. I mean, apart from the obvious fact that they tortured them to get them to confess, but one would hope that they have more evidence than simply a confession obtained in such an immoral way.

Obama is doing what should have been done years ago. And it's astonishing that the Republicans, the party who usually lead the "Hang them, flog them" brigade, in this instance didn't even want to go near a court of law.

As I say, that's probably because they felt sure that their torture methods would be revealed in a court of law, but that's an irrelevance now that we have all found out what they were up to anyway.

The decision to try them in a New York court appears to be part of Mr Obama's efforts to close Guantanamo by 22 January 2010.

His administration says it will try some detainees in US courts and repatriate or resettle others who are not perceived as a threat.

I've always felt that the Bush regime gave these guys a status which they have never deserved. They are not an army and they are not soldiers. They are criminals. And they should be prosecuted and sent down like the common criminals they are, not held up as warriors.

Click here for full article.

2 comments:

Cecilieaux said...

The reticence of bringing any Guantánamo prisoners to trial is based on the unconstitutionality of (a) torture and (b) holding someone without charge for years.

How does the government prove that whatever evidence the prosecution presents was not obtained unconstitutionally as a result of coerced confessions and is therefore tainted and useless?

How does the government propose to punish individuals who were unconstitutionally detained and denied their right to a speedy trial?

The awful legacy of the Bushies is that they illegally detained these guys, who richly deserve trial as common criminals, not "terrorists."

Now the likelihood is very high that any federal judge will be compelled to throw the case(s) out.

Kel said...

The awful legacy of the Bushies is that they illegally detained these guys, who richly deserve trial as common criminals, not "terrorists."

Now the likelihood is very high that any federal judge will be compelled to throw the case(s) out.


That's why I am hoping that they have more evidence than a torture induced confession.

I have to think that they have, otherwise I seriously doubt that this would be going ahead.