 |
| |
|
|
lord of the mark
|
 |
FUKCOV - Former United Kingdom Colony of Virginia
Dec 2000
time: 00:31
|
|
AP
'The U.S. Capitol Building, not the White House, was the fourth target of the Sept. 11 attackers, a German magazine reported Sunday citing results of interrogations of suspected al Qaeda leaders.
Der Spiegel said also planning for the attacks on New York and Washington in 2001 began as early as 1996, but plans hatched in 1999 to use four planes in the attacks were temporarily halted because only two pilots could then obtain U.S. visas. The operation, code-named "Porsche 911" by its perpetrators, was finalized in July 2001, the magazine said.
"The Porsche is ready to start," it cited Mohamed Atta, the Egyptian-born student who piloted one of the two hijacked planes that destroyed the World Trade Center, as saying.
Another hijacked plane hit the Pentagon (news - web sites), while a fourth crashed in Pennsylvania before it could reach its target in Washington. Around 3,000 people died in the attacks.
Spiegel magazine said its report was based on transcripts of the U.S. interrogation of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the accused mastermind of the attacks, and Ramzi bin al-Shaibah, the man suspected of coordinating them.
"The fourth plane, according to bin al-Shaibah's questioning, should have hit the Capitol, the U.S. parliament ... U.S. authorities long suspected that it should have hit the White House. Only bin al-Shaibah's statement corrected the error," the magazine reported.
The magazine did not say where it had obtained the material but said parts of the transcripts dealing with Germany had been passed to German authorities.
According to Spiegel, Sheikh Mohammed first suggested in 1996 an attack on the headquarters of the CIA using a chartered jet but this was rejected by al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden as not being spectacular enough. Sheikh Mohammed later suggested a 10-plane attack, it added.
Bin al-Shaibah was arrested in Pakistan in September 2002. Pakistan announced it had also arrested Sheikh Mohammed in March 2003. Both men are currently being held by the United States at an unknown foreign location. '
Thats what we've got in gitmo. Hope we're squeezing them for every bit of info theyve got.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Comrade Tassadar
|
|
quote:
why shouldnt the ones captured in pakistan be returned there? |
This really has to be a joke.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MichaeltheGreat
|
|
Apolyton Grand Executioner
|
 |
mooning the house that Ruth built.
Oct 1999
time: 21:31
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Lefty Scaevola
The most interesting legal question presented with the Guantanomo prisoners, to shed a little light on you laymen making fools of yourself in athe legal arena, is the procedure, mostly undifined in the 1947 conventions, for dertermining who is an unlawful combatant. Tjis is where the USA position appear to have a serious weakness. |
IIRC, it simply requires a competent tribunal, competent referring of course to one having jurisdiction, and no further definition being given.
IIRC, the US position taken is that the SecDef has the authority to make that determination, and did in fact act as a tribunal in reviewing whether prisoners were to be detained locally, or transferred to Camp Xray.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MichaeltheGreat
|
|
Apolyton Grand Executioner
|
|
mooning the house that Ruth built.
Oct 1999
time: 21:31
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Lefty Scaevola
That is the official position, but one not very statisfying to many lawyers outside the Goverment. However, i do not see an effective method to challenge it. As noted, the law on the subject is VERY vague, although I very much doubt that any covention delegates, or bodies that ratified it, ever imagined that a single political appointee, rather than a group of judicial officers, would be the tribunal. |
I think the technical details are that the initial recommendation of status was made by officers in charge of the interrogation and initial processing of these prisoners, and then it got kicked up to Rummy for rubberstamping, so he's not the sole approval.
I don't find it to be a satisfying solution in general, but I can't get too worked up in these cases - we have people clearly not part of a regular force or organized militia, members of two groups who did not openly carry arms, wear distinguishing markings visible at a distance, and which did not and do not adhere to the laws and customs of war.
Treating Afghan members of the Taleban in their normal uniforms (black turbans) and the large body of Pakistani volunteers who were also "uniformed" Taleban as unlawful combatants on a wholesale basis would be unacceptable, IMO. But irregular and foreign Taleban who engaged in guerilla operations, and members of al Qaeda conducted themselves so far out of the norms of lawful combatants that I don't have a problem with the results so far.
In WW2, Skorzeny's Einheits Stielau prisoners captured by the US were treated to very quick trials before tribunals of three officers, one of which had to be in field grade - the standard that applied at the time. They were taken in US uniform as infiltrators, there really was no defense, and they had trials one day and executions a few days later. No wasted energy or BS. The Genevan Convention for POWs grew out of the military law context that applied in the field in WW2, so I don't see that it would be exceptionally tough to implement something similar.
I think procedural treatment should follow the Manual for Courts Martial and criminal law (and penalties) should follow the UCMJ for these people - I really don't get what Rumsfeld and Ashcroft think they have to gain by talking about (but taking no real action) on creating special tribunals with special one-off procedural rules.
And you're right - it's not fine points at all. I'd have to suspect, absent any other explanation, that the language as to what constitutes a proper tribunal for status and other purposes deliberately did not impose any specific requirement so as to get the greatest number of governments, including many non-savory governments, to ratify the convention.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Alexander's Horse
|
 |
Panmunjon, hands up!
Jan 1970
time: 15:31
|
|
It's illegal, it's immoral, it's shameful, it's counter productive and one day a future President is probably going to have to apologise about it.
Last edited by Alexander's Horse on 05-11-2003 at 11:53
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:31.
Apolyton Time is 00:31. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
05-11-2003 02:26
.
|