MORE than six years after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, US military prosecutors are preparing to file formal charges against six high-ranking Al-Qaeda detainees, among them Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who allegedly confessed to masterminding the plot.

 

The accused terrorists are all being held at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba. US officials said yesterday that war crime charges could be filed as early as this week, although it may be many months before the cases are ready to go to trial.

 

The apparent breakthrough in a heavily criticised judicial process would open the door to the first prosecutions of the alleged 9/11 ringleaders since the hijacking of four aircraft resulted in the deaths of almost 3,000 people.

 

The proceedings are certain to inflame worldwide criticism of the US military justice system, including the severely limited legal rights of Guantanamo detainees and the use of torture during interrogations.

 

Last week General Michael Hayden, director of the CIA, confirmed to a congressional hearing that Mohammed, known as KSM, was among those prisoners subjected to “waterboarding”, the simulated drowning technique.

 

The cases will be tried by military judges with military lawyers representing the defendants. The proceedings will be held in a new high-security courtroom at Guantanamo.

 

After legal setbacks in its attempts to create a parallel justice system for terrorist suspects, the Pentagon appears to be pressing ahead in the hope of bringing Al-Qaeda leaders to trial before George W Bush leaves office in January 2009.

 

Source : Sunday Telegraph

 

By the standards of American's own legal system, this should be an instant "mis-trial" or else the case should be thrown out altogether by the judge.. Any "confessions" that were obtained would be, at the very least, co-erced (let's face it though, they were tortured, and torture "evidence" is NON ADMISSABLE in a US court)... The fact that the suspects have been held in custody illegally for over six years with virtually no legal represenation also flies in the face of the principles of America's legal system....

 

This is not a trial, this is a Kangaroo Court with a already pre-ordained verdict to shame even the "trial" of Saddam Hussein...

 

By America's own principles of jurisprudence, reasonable doubt and habeas corpus, these suspects should really be set free, because that is the LAW of their land.... Any other suspect being subjected to similar conditions in a police cell would've been freed by now, guilty or not....

 

If I were a jury member in this trial and I were to apply the exact rule of the law, I would really have no other choice than to deliver a Not Guilty verdict due to the conduct under which this whole affair has been carried out.... I dont think you could possibly come up with a better example of a trial being prejudiced and of a case having reasonable doubt....

And WHY did they wait until NOW to do this?? Did it take six years of waterboarding and flushing Qur'ans down toilets to get to this point? Bull$h!t - just like Saddam Hussein was found shortly before the 2004 election, this is all the Bush administration trying to distract the public's attention. Democrats are showing up to vote for their presidential nominee in numbers 2-3x that of republicans. What better way to distract from this massive, anti-Bush movement then to throw a bunch of "Terrorists" into some media circus "trial of the century."

 

Worse, maybe they are trying to provoke a terrorist attack so that warmonger Mccain can rally his militaristic cause and win the election. Or $h!t, maybe a terrorist attack will give Bush an excuse to declare martial law and cancel the election.

 

I put NOTHING past these disgusting murderers.

Edited February 13, 200817 yr by Consie

And WHY did they wait until NOW to do this?? Did it take six years of waterboarding and flushing Qur'ans down toilets to get to this point? Bull$h!t - just like Saddam Hussein was found shortly before the 2004 election, this is all the Bush administration trying to distract the public's attention. Democrats are showing up to vote for their presidential nominee in numbers 2-3x that of republicans. What better way to distract from this massive, anti-Bush movement then to throw a bunch of "Terrorists" into some media circus "trial of the century."

 

Worse, maybe they are trying to provoke a terrorist attack so that warmonger Mccain can rally his militaristic cause and win the election. Or $h!t, maybe a terrorist attack will give Bush an excuse to declare martial law and cancel the election.

 

I put NOTHING past these disgusting murderers.

 

 

Hear Hear... This is nothing more than a bid to get the Republicans voted back into office, AGAIN in November '08.... The timing could not be more obvious, or less of a coincidence...

 

If these suspects are indeed found guilty under the conditions that I have outlined, then it will absolutely shatter any confidence or belief in the American legal system to conduct itself without prejudice or with any kind of moral authority.. The US legal system has set itself up as being one of the most ideologically sound and fair systems in the civilised world, this pathetic "show trial" will irrevocably damage that system forever...

I agree with everything that has been said above, nothing more I can add

 

But the whole trial is something that would even shame Mugabe's regime let alone a so called civilised country like America, all 6 have clearly been already found guilty and this will just be a show trial while they go through the motions with a nice execution in time for the elections, the fact that this is being done by a military tribunal stinks even more of kangaroo court

 

 

If they are alleged mass murderers, they cannot be allowed to get off on a technicality, but I fear their trial in America will never appear to be fair. It would be better to have them tried in an international court.

Edited February 14, 200817 yr by Baytree

agreed, like a swiss court for example.

 

after-all they are a neutral country

If they are alleged mass murderers, they cannot be allowed to get off on a technicality, but I fear their trial in America will never appear to be fair. It would be better to have them tried in an international court.

 

Spot on. If they are indeed going to be tried under 'War Crimes' charges, then The Hague is surely the best venue for it... If it was good enough for Slobodan Milosevic.....

 

And you can really hardly call torture, coercion, breaches of the Geneva Convention and denial of legal representation to be mere "technicalities" mate.... The Americans wont allow a trial in an open International Court, because such a court will probably agree with what myself and Consie has said and declare that most of the "evidence" would be inadmissable because of how it was obtained and the conditions under which these suspects were detained which would be in total breach of International standards....

 

The Americans made a rod for their own backs with their totally unnacceptable conduct which flies in the face of all decency and civilised behaviour when they spirited these people off to Guantanamo Bay... If they'd been treated like Prisoners of War and everything had been done by the book (which the Americans signed up to in the first fukkin' place when they signed the UN Charter and the Geneva Convention...), we wouldn't even be having this debate...

I agree with everything that has been said above, nothing more I can add

 

But the whole trial is something that would even shame Mugabe's regime let alone a so called civilised country like America, all 6 have clearly been already found guilty and this will just be a show trial while they go through the motions with a nice execution in time for the elections, the fact that this is being done by a military tribunal stinks even more of kangaroo court

 

 

Can the US even call itself a civilised country anymore thanks to Bush and his cronies....? Their conduct ever since (and during) the November 2000 "elections" has been nothing short of shameful (or indeed shameless), the US has lost any moral authority it may have once had.. And it goes beyond whatever is being done in the name of the "war on terror" or Iraq.. It also includes the refusal to sign up to the Kyoto protocol and the Bush admin's response to the Katrina disaster, both of which are just beyond contempt... Would Clinton or Gore have refused help from Cuba just because they didn't like Castro very much...? I rather doubt it... And HOW DARE Bush speak for the people of New Orleans anway, who probably would've taken any and all help they could get regardless of the source....