Always keep in mind that one million times zero equals zero.
- Manlobbi
Halls of Shrewd'm / US Policy❤
No. of Recommendations: 3
Because, why not?
https://nypost.com/2025/01/06/us-news/biden-admin-...Biden admin releases 11 Yemeni detainees with suspected al Qaeda ties from Guantanamo Bay — including two alleged former bin Laden bodyguardsWhat's the Bill Ayers quote? "Guilty as sin, free as a bird, what a country!" or some such.
January 20 can't get here fast enough.
No. of Recommendations: 0
I know it's not a popular thought -- but this is just another reason why I say:
Give those 11 Sheeple Scouts a passport, $20K in cash, and drop them off in Paris at the Mosque of their choice.
I'd love to pay part of that tab.
If only.
No. of Recommendations: 3
Biden admin releases 11 Yemeni detainees with suspected al Qaeda ties from Guantanamo Bay — including two alleged former bin Laden bodyguards
How long have they been locked up? Locked up for 20 years doesn't seem like free as a bird.
No. of Recommendations: 4
What's the Bill Ayers quote? "Guilty as sin, free as a bird, what a country!"
I believe it was Donald Trump.
No. of Recommendations: 1
How long have they been locked up? Locked up for 20 years doesn't seem like free as a bird.
They haven’t been locked up long enough. And now thanks to Biden they get to be free as birds.
Wait until he plea bargains some of the nastier ones in Gitmo.
No. of Recommendations: 2
I believe it was Donald Trump.
Nah. Trump didn’t plant nail bombs and cheer on murders.
No. of Recommendations: 8
Nah. Trump didn’t plant nail bombs and cheer on murders.
Others planted the bombs for him. And he most certainly cheers on murders- on a regular basis.
No. of Recommendations: 2
Others planted the bombs for him. No they don't.
Anyways, back to the actual subject:
https://www.newsweek.com/9-11-defendants-lives-spa...
01:06
Judge Reinstates Plea Deals for Alleged 9/11 Mastermind
By Matthew Impelli
Writer
FOLLOW
3
AU.S. military appeals court has rejected U.S. Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin's attempt to void plea agreements for Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and two other defendants accused in the 9/11 attacks, according to a U.S. official.
Why It Matters
The ruling reinstates plea agreements under which the three men would admit guilt in connection with the September 11, 2001, Al-Qaeda attacks—among the deadliest in U.S. history—in exchange for avoiding potential death sentences.Plea deals for KSM.
Just awesome. Biden should just buy him a house in Malibu while he's at it.
No. of Recommendations: 2
As much as I hated what those people did, their detention was illegal. And it was a sad comment in our confidence in our justice system that we didn't run them through it. They're either POWs (which they weren't, apparently), or they were criminals (I would argue the latter). POWs you can hold, criminals you cannot without a trial. We have rule of law for a reason, and we didn't follow it. Not even close.
It is yet another stain on the American soul.
FWIW, I would have preferred they be transferred to a proper prison and tried. However, I suspect that their treatment would have had their cases thrown out in a proper court, so releasing them was just an admission of that fact.
No. of Recommendations: 0
They're either POWs (which they weren't, apparently), or they were criminals (I would argue the latter). POWs you can hold, criminals you cannot without a trial. We have rule of law for a reason, and we didn't follow it. Not even close.
They were classified as "enemy combatants", which is what they were. To meet the definition outlined in the Geneva Convention, one must
1. Have a chain of command
2. Wear a distinct uniform
3. Not operate or hide among the civilian population
4. Follow the rules of the Geneva Convention themselves
Al Qaeda (and every terrorist for that matter) is 0 for 4. As such, they are not POWs. Given their actions they're somewhat more than criminals but even if they were...the US Constitution does not apply to them.
You've touched on one reason why. Applying discovery, chain of evidence and other niceties of criminal defendant procedure isn't practical.
They should have all been designated for military trials but those were blocked.
No. of Recommendations: 2
The US Constitution does apply as soon as we take custody of them. The Constitution limits our government, and what it can do. It cannot detain someone indefinitely without trial, exercise cruel/unusual punishment, and other such things. The Constitution isn't concerned with "is it practical".
I would have been OK with military tribunals. At least that's something. It's a form of rule of law. What we did was nothing about law, except in its avoidance of it. So now if we pursue actual legal routes, we already know they will go free. Too many rights were violated. May as well just release them, or we are as bad as they say we are.
No. of Recommendations: 0
The US Constitution does apply as soon as we take custody of them. The Constitution limits our government, and what it can do. It cannot detain someone indefinitely without trial, exercise cruel/unusual punishment, and other such things. The Constitution isn't concerned with "is it practical".
Not necessarily.
Prisoners of War are treated according to the Geneva Convention. Had they been designated as under the jurisdiction of a military tribunal then the law of the land with respect to them would have been the UCMJ (Uniform Code of Military Justice).
No. of Recommendations: 2
Prisoners of War are treated according to the Geneva Convention. Had they been designated as under the jurisdiction of a military tribunal then the law of the land with respect to them would have been the UCMJ (Uniform Code of Military Justice).
But we failed to do that. We arguably should have done that, though we weren't really at 'war', legally. We chose option C, which was don't deal with it at all. Just hold them. That was illegal. I spoke out against it at the time, and I continue to say that what we did was wrong. We should have chosen either the POW route, or the criminal justice route.
