Really? The official definition of enemy combatant according to US District Court Judge Richard J. Leon is “ ‘Enemy combatant’ shall mean an individual who was part of or supporting Taliban or al Qaeda forces, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners. This includes any person who has committed belligerent act or has directly supported hostilities in aid of enemy combat forces.” Seems pretty cut and dried to me that KSM falls under the category of "enemy combatant". Are you trying to argue that he is just a civilian so you can get him set free on technicalities?
I already acknowledged the political dispute regarding the trial venue... So that was settled over a year ago, what have they been waiting for since then? You've not actually mentioned any causes besides "politics". I didn't point out your lack of the use of the word alleged because it bothers me; rather because it illustrates how you make firm claims you can't back up. How come all the major media outlets all call him the "alleged mastermind" instead of just the mastermind? Have you written to these editors to tell them how wrong they are? Do you know why they use that word? I gave you such a broad window so I could see how relevant an example you could find.. Honestly I thought you'd be travelling to North Korea or back to the dark ages, so good find. Nevertheless, India? So we can assume at least in the USA such a delay is completely unprecedented right? Also your article says he fell through the cracks and was forgotten about. While certainly a tragedy, no problems with the USA "forgetting about" KSM. When I said not trial, tribunal, it means basically the same thing; I was being sarcastic.. Let me make it clear for you if you're having trouble following along.. When I refer to his original trial, or tribunal, that was terminated, I meant to call it the "Officially sanctioned legal proceeding used to justify his further detention". Okay, if you deny someone, anyone the right to liberty, it requires due process of law per the US constitution. They were attempting this via enemy combatant classification, but stopped short, and terminated the hearings prior to the classification taking hold on KSM. NOW they are allegedly going to resume trying to justify his detention via constitutional means of due process of law. They wanted to do that in NY but will have to go back to Gitmo for this. If this is a different kind of trial, a criminal one instead of enemy combatant one, then fine. If anything that's a step better so I'm not complaining. Agreed... But that is a departure from what you said, a welcome one.. I asked you specifically, what exhibits off the Moussaiu trial best conclude guilt for the ones you accuse of "masterminding" the attack. You previously identified them as "OBL and KSM are two" [such masterminds]. You did NOT stop and say what you say now, that OBL and KSM weren't specifically shown guilty by that evidence, rather you said ALL the evidence showed it: "All of it. Osama, KSM, and the rest are the known leaders of Al Qaeda. The evidence points to Al Qaeda. Al Qaeda admits to the attacks. How much more evidence do you need? The ONLY ones claiming Al Qaeda is innocent are the people like you who are so enamored with them that you can't believe they are guilty." Here's you clearly trying to link OBL and KSM into AQ and therefore into the verdict in this trial, by extension of the fact they are leaders of the organization. You literally said that the AQ was behind 9/11 story, exactly like you tell it, was proven in court, in the trial of Moussaiu. Your basis for this argument was that they first had to do this.. (this unsubstantiated claim merely your opinion). They had to do this therefore they did.. Your premise is exactly the same as your conclusion. It's like saying there is a grizzly bear in the cabin, don't go in it, and I say why and you say that if you have a cabin then you have to have a grizzly bear in it, that's why. That's a fallacy.. Your premise is your conclusion. Circular logic. Now let's examine what was proven in the trial.. First of all Moussaiu plead guilty, so the court never debated if he was guilty or not. His guilt to take part in the operation, on an operative level, was now the foregone conclusion made by a guilty plea, NOT determination by the court. But the court's work was not done.. They then had to decide if they wanted to give him life in prison or execution. They HAD to decide the sentence.. NOW is when they started bringing out witnesses and evidence and such.. And at the end of the day, the court thought this was NOT sufficient evidence for execution, so had to err on the side of life behind bars. If anything, the evidence they put forward FAILED when it hit the courtroom, because they didn't secure that death penalty. Now you try to twist that around into claiming that the court determined AQ was behind the attack, which is the silliest in legal sophistry. I told you that the 9/11 commission report cites no evidence to back up that story other than the unverifiable CIA interrogation reports (The CIA destroyed the tapes when judicial orders told them not to) that KSM himself offers no solid supporting evidence or critical details in order to substantiate his own claims to fame, and that you haven't come up with anything other than a computer you can't prove is his and appears to have no mention of him on it, and that PENTBOMM, the biggest and costliest ever in the history of the world criminal investigation, didn't find any hard evidence tying to KSM. Not so much that there is no evidence, just that I haven't seen it. This only works for you because you keep employing this false dichotomy fallacy. The world isn't so black and white as this, patriot.. You think either KSM's confession must be fully accurate, that he masterminded 9/11 and plotted it from a to z without leaving the slightest forensic fingerprint, AND was behind 31 different plots as well (basically he's superterrorist) OR he is pure as the driven snow, innocent as the day God made him, the next incarnation of Jesus Christ himself, having never so much as even returned a library book late. There's a middle ground. Perhaps the guy wasn't the mastermind of 9/11, but he assisted it in some smaller capacity, and now he's just exaggerating so as to earn the proper martyr title. Definatily possible. The guy's obviously hostile towards the U.S. and at the very least an advocate of terrorism. Maybe he was behind some of those 31 plots but not all. Hell there's no evidence a lot of those plots even exist! So no, me asking you to prove your claims about the principal architect story is not the same as me arguing the guy's the next Mother Theresa. Since I've explained this to you in depth, you can now stop with these lies and personal attacks about me being his "biggest fan". By the way, you never showed me the "supporting testimonies" you claimed existed nor quoted the confessions you claim were made by the other four of his co-conspirators. You claimed they actually confessed, so an article about how they wanted to confess isn't going to cut it.. They must have done so successfully, where are the quotes for the actual confessions/testimonies of the co-accused?
You can't be that ignorant. Or maybe so. He planned the attacks on the WTC, the Pentagon and the failed attack on the capital. His planning resulted in the deaths of over 3000 people. Over 3000 counts of homicide. He is by definition an unlawful enemy combatant. He'll be tried as such.
Your leaders ALSO redefined the meaning of torture, to excuse what they were doing as well. I was referring to as set forth by international law. You know, the actual BINDING definitions, the ones that are actually applicable here.
International law is irrelevant. KSM violated US law on US soil and we have jurisdiction. He'll have his opportunity to argue that he was tortured.
Why must you be so vague? If this were true you could point me to a specific action and proof of it. e.g. he wired such and such money to such and such person on this date and bought such and such a plane ticket etc. You believe he's the mastermind as all your leaders tell me.. But have you done enough homework on the topic to cite any specific actions KSM took? WHOSE definition?
Of course I'm not aware of all of the evidence against KSM. As you are not either. That'll come out at trial. At this point there is sufficient evidence to charge KSM as the 911 mastermind. US law.
You've just contradicted yourself.. If he were a domestic criminal he can't be an "unlawful enemy combatant" because that title refers to designated armed conflicts.
So your claim that he plotted that whole attack you've not actually verified for yourself.. You've not actually looked for any proof yourself, you just believe it? You shouldn't accuse people of very serious crimes, and state it as fact, unless you have HARD evidence to support your position. Now I know you don't.. So you're just chatting (*)(*)(*)(*). US law is bound by international law that the US is party to per the constitution.
Under US law he's considered an unlawful enemy combatant and he'll be tried as such by a military tribunal. You might disagree with that but that's how it is.
Patriot911 quoted the opinion of some judge. Judges do not make the laws, nor do their opinions constitute the laws. Laws are written by your legislature, in the form of statute. Point out the statute you claim makes KSM an "unlawful enemy combatant". You claim it's the law so prove it.
Please leave the personal attacks out of it. If the MCA means KSM is an unlawful enemy combatant, then why was there a military commission hearing on KSM after that to determine whether or not he was an enemy combatant? You see the argument is he already was.. Which means the hearing to determine if he was or not makes no sense. The answer to that is simple.. The MCA was set up to try these people to make such determination, as well as to strip away some of the basic rights of the accused, like self incrimination and pretrial evidence gathering guidelines. Also, the definitions outlined in ANY federal statute do not trump those proscribed by international law, per the US constitution.. This is the point everyone has so far ignored while going on about US laws as though they are somehow better or more applicable. This requires such determination to be made by a regularly constituted tribunal prior to such classification taking effect. Regardless what tenuous arguments your leaders try to insist, neither they nor their laws can trump this international accord. Anyone who has a problem with that ought to take it up with their congress and try to get a constitutional amendment to get rid of that supreme law of the land clause.
Our leaders were not judges defining a legal term. Nice try at obfuscating, but you failed. This has nothing to do with international law. You know it. I know it. KSM is not under the jurisdiction of international law as it applies to how he is to be tried. That is the domain of the nation doing the trying. International law is only applicable if we've signed a convention specifically dictating how we try him. You've asked for and received US law that dictates how he is to be tried. If you're so sure international law trumps national law, I am sure you would have no problem showing us where we signed a convention that we will only try people according to international law.
I am sure you can point out where in our constitution it states international law definitions trump those defined in a federal statute, right? You've made the claim several times. I don't seem to recall that passage in our constitution.
Didn't you get the memo from John Yoo? The United States is a party to, and ratified in 1955, the third Geneva convention agreement. This meant that they agreed that a detainee's status is to remain as POW, with full POW protections, until such time that another classification like "unlawful enemy combatant" is proven in a regularly constituted tribunal.
Way to purposefully play dumb. So noted you're not here to debate but to apply sarcasm. What does that have to do with how he is tried? Try to keep up.