NY. Governor Paterson has changed his mind and come out against Obama’s decision to have Khalid Shaikh Mohammed tried in New York City. Although he’s a lousy governor, I must salute his stand against the Totalitarian Regime of Barack Hussein Obama.
The government’s plan to put Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and four others accused of masterminding the 9/11 attacks on trial in Manhattan is a bad idea, Gov. Paterson said today.
“This is not a decision that I would have made,” Paterson said when asked about the upcoming federal trial. “Our country was attacked on its own soil on Sept. 11, 2001, and New York was very much the epicenter of that attack.”
Paterson made the comments following an appearance in East Harlem — contradicting what he said Friday, which was that he favored the trial being held in the city.
Tags: Khalid Shaikh Mohammed
What’s he got to lose?
Being a judge is a thing of beauty if ones heart is prone to righteousness. Let’s hope that is the case with the jurists who will hear the complaints of these followers of Allah.
http://michellemalkin.com/2009/11/13/bombshell-obama-bringing-ksm-to-nyc-for-trial/
Maybe he will activate the needed trouble Dems deserve to put an end to the idioticness of it all.
Remember this NY, the imam who counciled the Fort Hood shooter said, although he didn’t encourage him to go on a killing rampage, what he did is permissible in islam.
Oh come on , I’ll say it. The blind leading the blind. Evening everyone.
All it’s going to take is one Muslim on that jury!
@ Sparky:
Whatever his reason, he’s right.
Hi kids
I dont think there will be a trial.
I personally think he will die in a firey massive explosion inside the building. Killing hundreds inside and outside of the courthouse.
possibly followed by small arms being fired by jihadist and suicide bombers, maybe even a “dirty Bomb” or possibly a small nuclear device.
I really pray this does not happen, but look at who you are dealing with, these people dont care if they live or die.
Sorry to be a “buzzkill” but it is in me from my training. As much a I dislike NYC I do pray for those people who will be victims.
Howdy all, Sorry to start out with that, but I really think that will happen, then “the Marxist” will have his emergency!
Actually CD, that would be a prayer answered. Any trial at all is fucked up.
@ Conservative Democrat:
Funny, just change jihadi to christian rightwing wacko and you’ve got the liberal conspiracy theory all wrapped up. Yours is much more probable. Sleeper cells will awaken if able.
@ savage:
hello!!!!!!!!!!
@ Rodan:
Ready for Vegas?
Sad thing is I do not believe in conspiracy theories. But this is one I can actually see happening, then “The Marxist” will be able to declare Marshal Law and then……. well you go from there, I just pray that the Military is in support of the Constitution, and NOT “the Marxist” as CIC.
Conservative Democrat wrote:
Jeeminy Christmas! Do you really think so?
@ Conservative Democrat:
And then zero will blame it on militias. Haven’t we been here before? There’s a kind of deja vu about this.
Sounds as if even in liberal New York City, there’s strong disagreement with staging the KSM “demolition without a proper permit” trial, or whatever the Obama Administration is calling it.
Just to let everyone know, I have made a promise to myself, I will do everything in my power to free this country from the grip of socialist and marxist now in power. I will not be silenced anymore when “talking” with Liberals, they caused this…If they voted for “The Marxist” they are the reason this is happening!NO BUYERS REMORSE>>>>THEY KNEW what he was BEFORE the election.
off the soap box now….
pbird wrote:
I pray to God I am wrong, but I dont think so, I feel this is actually part of the Marxist plan…Remember we NEED an emergency, I believe either Axelrod or Geithner said….NEVER let an emergency go to waste.
WOW, is this “STUNNED Silence” I hear…….
chirp….chirp…….ribbett…….ribbett!
Hoffman ‘unconcedes’ in NY-23. He says if it’s possible he would unconcede. Can you imagine a Democrat saying, “if it’s possible”.
Make it possible dude!
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/67997-hoffman-unconcedes-in-ny-23
Please, someone tell me they also thought of that scenario, Please….pretty please…..with a cherry on top.
Conservative Democrat wrote:
That was Rahm. But yeah, I know they’d love it.
Can I be excused? Its getting to exciting to live right now.
Pro-commie Che supporters with the radical ANSWER Coalition beat up tea party protesters at a Fort Lauderdale rally this past weekend.
If you didn’t see this link at the other thread. http://izismile.com/2009/07/01/daily_picdump_126_pics.html
There are some really hilarious pix there. And the one in the middle of Obama… explains a lot.
Did Hoffman get any closer? He can concede and await the Official results, its the votes that count…if he is elected he is elected.
Simple process………Geee guys the news papers say we lost everything not one vote for us……..well I guess I better tell the folks the bad news……….Pelosi did what? The democrat guy who thinks he got elected all of a sudden LOVES the healthcare bill?
Hoffman has the votes, go to his office and get to work, fuck pelosi….Oh and take away that one illegal house vote.
snork wrote:
Charming charming people.
@ Kali:
If you recall, Gore “unconceded”.
@ Conservative Democrat:
I see you have a photo of Lt. General James Longstreet as your avatar.
And remember during the primary’s when the voting happened too early, forgot which state. Hillary won that one but they said none of the votes counted because they held the voting day before it was legal. Huh? How did that even happen in the first place.
@ Conservative Democrat:
I thought of that exact thing. Even posted it on GCP.
Conservative Democrat wrote:
Ewww! Not into necrophilia.
@ Conservative Democrat:
No way these guys would want that kind of crisis to happen.
No way.
I think it’s being done just to put the USA and Bush on trial, to expose our faults (real or imagined), and to score points with the international Left. A political show trial.
@ Kali:
I forget which radio show i heard that on last week. The article didn’t mention that there is some illegal things that happened also. I forgot what they said. Things they said could also get Nancy into a lot of trouble! YAY!!! Pray it happens!
Sounded like an acorn job, but who knows. Something not all the way legal happened. So hard to keep up on the avalanche of stories every day. No slow news days thats for sure.
Speranza wrote:
Yes my picture of N.B. Forrest,Joe Wheeler and Wade Hampton are much crappier than this, I will get new ones of them as well as Raphael Semmes, but in the meantime ol’ Pete will have to do!
Place the terrorist bastards down in the well of the WTC and have several dump truck drop off baseball sized stones all around the perimeter and let the NYC citizens deal with cockroaches.
@ savage:
Ain’t gonna happen. That’s what the oathkeepers are all about.
wolfie wrote:
Hey, I really hope not also, but these are terrorist, and our Marxist does not seem to understand that.
what happened under Clinton in the Parking lot UNDER the WTC during his watch? I fear these people (terrorist) are much more embolden by hearing the Marxist speak.
Like I said I really hope not, but remember: Prepare for the absolute worst, and pray for the best.
@ snork:
Yep, and there’s Franken who should have conceded but found votes in the trunk of a car which lead to finding enough votes to win.
@ Conservative Democrat:
The forces of history do not favor peace.
This country is one big powder keg just waiting for a spark to set it off.
If we stay on our present course (and I don’t see it changing) we are probably going to come to a very bad end…
@ Kali:
Don’t get me started on Christine Gregoire…
Da_Beerfreak wrote:
I really would much prefer “THEY”! Fact is SOMETHING is going to happen…everyone is just not talking about it, or how they feel all tense about the future.
@ teacake:
This is the first I heard of it. Blogmocracy usually does a great job keeping me up to date on the news.
I hope Hoffman pushes for the win but it’s gonna be one hell of a battle!
Kali wrote:
One other item of note.
The Minnesota Secretary of State is an ACORN/Soros flunky.
He’s been waiting to spit in Barry’s eye since Barry told him not to run for Governor.
In a battle of Dem douches I hope they both lose.
Conservative Democrat wrote:
Yes. Weakness encourages evil.
@ savage:
Yup, I’ll see how many I an round up. Probably not many from what I saw on the lain in March, o I’ll give you a head.
WWII in H.D. just concluded on the Histwa Channel and I didn’t think to grab the remote quick enough.WWII proceeded by ‘The Histwa of Thanksgiving’ with Harry K. Smith. Just…not…quick…enough. Pelosi look alike within first 5 minutes: “The Indians were soooooo generous with their help,had they only known they might not have been so friendly”. Yeah, U stupid (*&*() !!!
The Pilgrims made the Jihadis look like Mouseketers.
‘And there you go little Bobby & Betty…maybe you won’t enjoy that pumpkin pie quite as much this year…think about it while your sayin’ your dinner prayer…’
The shows barely got under way and I’m already ready to flip the coffee
table through the screen…. (101.7 and bruised ribs ain’t helping either). Thank G_d theres this place to work out your ‘feelings’ !!
Sorry 4 the rant.
Heh.
@ Abu Bin Squid:
Yeah. It’s kind of like that war between Saddam’s Iraq and Khomeini’s Iran. All you wished was that they both would lose!
Two-thirds of Americans disagree with the Obama administration’s decision to try Khalid Sheik Mohammed in a civilian court rather than a military court, according to a new national poll.
@ 4_Sticks:
Loved the rant.
@ snork:
Ramirez is the best political cartoonist around today! (IMHO)
snork wrote:
Ah, you know Queen Chrissy.
Da_Beerfreak wrote:
The only good light at the end of the tunnel is, guess who has all the guns? Give you a hint, it ain’t the Tranzi’s!
@ 4_Sticks:
Is there any holiday the leftists don’t insist on spoiling for the rest of us?
wolfie wrote:
Yes, he is.
Dope and Change.
@ Conservative Democrat:
If such a thing does happen, I expect the FBI to be on the scene within an hour to announce that it was not an act of terrorism.
Kruathammer: Giving KSM the rights of an American Citizen is Unconscionable
@ AZRedneck:
I’m a NRA life member and so are a bunch of my friends.
@ wolfie:
Yeah, Ramadan and QUANZA!!!!!!
LOL…A Jihadist holiday and a made up “Black” Holiday! gotta love em’ NOT!!!
@ wolfie:
Dr. Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. Day.
He was a great, imperfect man who stood for the values Jesse and Sharpton won’t. Funny, hard to believe the libtards still admire him.
Regardless, his content of character quote
willshould never go out of style.@ m:
It’s treason in my book!
@ savage:
Hello Honey! Hey – check your e-mails once in a while, will ya?!
snork wrote:
Excellent.
@ Conservative Democrat:
Kwanzaa was invented by a Black Supremacist. It’s a total invention, I’ve spoken to some real Africans and they laugh about it. They never heard of Kwanzaa!
@ Abu Bin Squid:
Glad you understood it ! I thought it was gonna get worse when they brought up ‘Sarah Hale, a widow, single mother needed money…’ and thought ‘Oh good, here comes the dirty evil Capitalist angle. I guess its over – a short ?
Rodan wrote:
You’re not allowed to do that. Show me your papers.
Da_Beerfreak wrote:
We got two Life Members in this house. Come to think of it we don’t have a real friend who is not!
Rodan wrote:
How dare you fact-check!!! Get off my blog!!
///
oops, sorry… wrong blog…. v
Bill Clinton is in Jerusalem trying to clean up behind President Obama and Hillary, whose strident anti-settlement policy has blown up in their face.
Sometimes I wonder what Bill says about zero behind closed doors.
Pray for President Obama Psalm 109:8 “Let his days be few; and let another take his office.”
@ snork:
Sometimes I wonder what the Hildabeast says about the Obamessiah behind closed doors.
@ snork:
Hey Snork – doesn’t Christine Gregoire remind you of The Grinch Who Stole Christmas?
@ savages_girl:
Stole something, anyway.
@ Rodan:
I believe he was i prison when he came up with the concept. Of course I could be wrong. He was certainly incarcerated at some point.
/not that there’s anything wrong with that
@ snork:
@ CynicalConservative:
LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1
snork wrote:
Are there truly 100,000,000 Americans who think this is a GOOD idea?
I’ll tell you one thing. If, God please forbid, there is another major attack on our soil, and if the liberals start pulling out their flags and singing “God Bless America” in the aftermath, I’m not buying it. I’m not falling for their little burst of patriotism again. It was nothing but a momentary feeeeeling, a cheap and fleeting sentiment.
@ Abu Bin Squid:
I think you are right. When I lived in NY I knew some real Africans from Kenya and they thought the Kwanzaa thing is insulting to them. Africa is a big diverse continent with differnt cultures. It’s not one size fits all.
Opilio wrote:
I would like to believe that this number includes children under twelve, advanced Alzheimer patients, and the clinically insane.
Off to bed. Night all. God bless all here.
@ wolfie:
wolfie, if something happened again, they would be in the streets cheering and dancing and burning things. I think the left has no ability to feel empathy or any such normal emotions.
@ wolfie:
I would think illegals, criminals and lefties make up about 1/3?
mfhorn wrote:
A housefly and two mosquitos told me a few things. Unfortunately, I am far too much of a lady to repeat them.
Rodan wrote:
Not to mention that REAL Africans get pissed off as all get out when Black Americans call themselves African-Americans. To quote one African of Zulu heritage that used to work at Toro with me… Why the hell you call yourselves Africans, you aint never been to Africa, you weren’t born there, hell your great great Grandmother wasnt even born their, you aint Africans…
@ teacake:
If not, close to it!
LOL I’m sure the Clinton’s have some really hilarious things to say. I doubt they like him any better than they did before and the way he fucks up, he’s just asking to be mocked. WOuld love to know what juicy bits they come up with! Please Bill, write a book.
doriangrey wrote:
I’ve known of white people from S. Africa and when they say there are African American’s black people who were born here and not Africa have a real fit. LOL
I’ve also known of 2 women who claim to be black, and there is just nothing about their appearance to think they are just crazy.
g’nite
Night All
On the WWII H.D. (I don’t know what else to call it) I SWEAR I saw my uncle (Marine) jumping off a Higgins boat. Even though he was young man then,he had and has,very distinctive features. He did 2 tours in the SP. Came home after 1st,re-upped to go back.My aunt told me that just before shipping out a feeling came over him and ‘I think my luck has run out’.
He’s probably taping this show as I don’t think, at 87, hes up this late. His hobby is making tapes ‘mixes’ and recording TV shows – G_d love ‘em ! I can’t wait until these coughing spasms cease so I can make a decent phone call.He’s a quite,humble Marine – not the type to call and say ‘did you see me on TV ?’. I never learned that he had done 2 tours until ‘91 ! I’ll never forget that day…until then, the most I knew about his service was that he still had a dreaded ‘Marine Corps’ belt !Oh, and that he went to Marine Corps reunions.The belt though !! When we (my brothers and cousins)started gettin’ outta hand,he’d come in the room and announce ‘Ok now,knock it off’ – one time. If he had to return it was with the webbed Corps. belt in hand. Never used it but we knew he meant business ! A certain steely eyed look of determination and air of deathly quiet as he approached… we’d ‘knock it off’ and that would be that. Nicest guy in the world though and a great sense of humor otherwise.He just didn’t put up with nonsense ! He and my aunt had 4 boys and my mom and dad had us 3 boys.At times, especially at bed time, we could be quite the handful – considering the man worked ‘rotating shifts’.Geeez, sorry,only meant to post the beginning but these 2, my aunt and uncle,are such good people !
I’ve never met anyone quite like them and my parents in todays society.
They made childhood (memories) for us that are so grand – well, this is what happens when I start talking about them !Reminiscing has an almost dream like quality to it all. I actually called my next younger bro.(several states away now) last year and asked him ‘is my memory of those days somehow a bit too rosy ?” He quite conquered , responding ‘Nope, I’ve asked myself the same thing, it was that good and it was due to them and their effort they made’.At least until the 60’s came along and screwed it all up. In part, thanks to Bill Ayers and Co. The polar opposite.My dad and uncle were Troopers in the greater NYC area when the bombings and shootings were going down. Thats the thanks they got from some. My father passed away almost 20 years ago but my uncle has to turn on the box today in 2009 and face the fact that Barry has ascended to the thrown. I can’t even imagine…
Last rant. Plum wore me out !
@ wolfie:
Seconded.
@ wolfie:
Sound like someone we know ? Hint: Pony Tail.
@ doriangrey:
@ teacake:
No lie there was a story once about some HS student winning the African-American student of the year award. It cause an uproar because the winner was a Boer-South African. He was born in Africa so he won it fair and square.
Africa is a diverse continent, White Boer/English South Africans, Arab/Berber North Africans, Latin-Angolan, Ethiopians and even some Indians. It’s not all the same. Even the blacks are different, people from the Congo look nothing like Ethiopians. People from Angola are mixed with Portuguese. It’s like everywhere else, there are a variety of people.
What really counts is that we are all humans. That’s it end of story.
That’s why I want to get rid of Racial classifications from the US Census. You being an American Citizen/Legal Resident is all that matters..
If, God please forbid, there is another major attack on our soil, and if the liberals start pulling out their flags and singing “God Bless America” in the aftermath, I’m not buying it.
I agree, wolfie. More than that, this time I am blaming them.
@ teacake:
“…the left has no ability to feel empathy or any such normal emotions.”
Funny you should say that – I have a running theory I’m working out concerning what used to be called ‘Manic/Depressive Disorder’(now known as Bi-Polar’). After a 4 hour phone rant concerning ‘moral relevancy’ with a Lib friend that has issues a little bit more deep than I had previously suspected – such as the argument that bombing the Hiroshima/Nag./Dresden is no different then the horrors the Nazis committed ‘when you think about it” (comment his).There was nothing I could say that could shake him off that perch. Its been said that Engineers have a high rate of Bi Polar in that professional community.I was told this many years ago by a mental health nurse who was married to one. Have yet to peruse the data and have no idea if she pulled it out of her a** because of the messy divorce they were going through.But it did occur to me, as I listened to his thought process, that everything had to ‘fit’ – no room for diversion – if this is A then that has to be A (or something like that) with no consideration for the many different factors that make a world of difference between the two.He gets VERY angry also when you bust any of his ‘logic’. I had started the conversation off, coincidentally, with telling him something I had read about stopping the teaching of the C. Columbus Song’ to elementary school kids.”Teach them the truth – whats your problem with ‘truth’ ? I asked hm if he wanted to do away with ‘Santa’ and the ‘Easter Bunny’ while we’re at it ? BTW, I was talking about 1st graders and made that well known.And as I can still recall, it was a ‘positive’ lesson about the Euros getting along and sharing with the Native Americans and vice versa.The Blunderbuss was for killing the turkey for dinner – not for teaching ‘a tool of genocide of the indiginous Native Americans’.I’ll admit it is a little silly to say that Columbus ‘discovered’ a land that the Native Americans had already inhabited – but I too remember my 1st grade teacher (good ‘ol Miss Callahan) explaining this too us also – they were looking for the W. Indies, were lost and ha no idea where they had landed elsewhere. I don’t remember this lesson making me have untoward feeling about the Indians !
In Cub Scouts we couldn’t wait for the ‘real deal’ Indian to come visit us ! We thought he was cooler then heck !!
I asked him (wise ass that I am) So What age is appropriate for teaching kids about scalping ? I asked him why he was so against kids having a little fun at this one time of the year – tracing the hand to make the turkey for moms fridge, Nina,Pinta Santa Maria mobiles from clths hangers etc. He asked me if the Indian kids in my class were having the same fun I was ?” From what I recall, “YES” !! Serious world history is something they can persue in later years, after they learn about the “liberry”,the correct methods for verifying facts and seperating from fiction/BS etc.
So much background/variables/unclear records etc.etc. In later years this will be available to them and hopefully they will have matured enough to process all the info, Maybe at the freshman year, but, until then, leave it the hell alone and let kids be kids”.Then he gives me the ‘Thanksgiving was only made a holiday in …’.
Either his phone eventually went dead or he hung up on me. i know he thought I was being a moron but I understood every damn argument he was making – its just that ‘its already in place, has for years and how was it hurting anyone ?’. If it was a knew proposal then we can talk but as it is, leave it alone… and that was my my opinion. Nope, not good enough.Back to the earlier arguments – no way to go off the linear thinking path, no room for anything but ‘the truth has to be told, children or not’.
*Note – this isn’t a ‘rant’ LOL !! I’m hoping someone will ‘bite’ as in actually read this ‘mess’ and understand my point – then weigh in. I know theres a Doctor in the house !
another one bites the dust – and after all that…
“I do not understand why they decommissioned [the detainees] from serving or being tried on Guantanamo …”
This and his objection to bringing ‘him’ to NYC actually makes 2statements against the
O. Hey, sometimes ya gotta give credit where credit is due. I wish I could have been in the room when he changed his mind – kinda a V-8 moment over the weekend ?On 2nd thought, maybe not if he was on ‘the thrown’…
“Now wait just a G.D. minute here !! I said WHAT Friday ?? Give me that paper – by Friday last week,I couldn’t tell if my head was bored or punched, crazy damned week …give me the phone too !!”
Don’t let ‘em pull the wool Gov….
“I may even VOTE for you next time around Gov.!! Well no, probably not – but I bet I’ll be conflicted about it !!”
/Bobby D.
If you post on a ‘dead thread’ and n ones there to read it, did your really
‘say‘ anything ?
Now I’m gonna lie awake pondering this all night – in my sweaty PJs,on my soaked sheets,until I get the energy to get up and make the linen change…
Airing out the mattress/flipping it,washing/drying – all those simple tasks on normal days. Feel like 130 !! More info … I know.
By George Friedman
U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder has decided that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed will be tried in federal court in New York. Holder’s decision was driven by the need for the U.S. government to decide how to dispose of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay, a U.S. Naval base outside the boundaries of the United States selected as the camp in which to hold suspected al Qaeda members.
We very carefully use the word “camp” rather than prison or prisoner of war camp. This is because of an ongoing and profound ambiguity not only in U.S. government perceptions of how to define those held there, but also due to uncertainties in international law, particularly with regard to the Geneva Conventions of 1949. Were the U.S. facility at Guantanamo a prison, then its residents would be criminals. If it were a POW camp, then they would be enemy soldiers being held under the rules of war. It has never really been decided which these men are, and therefore their legal standing has remained unclear.
War vs. Criminal Justice
The ambiguity began shortly after 9/11, when then-U.S. President George W. Bush defined two missions: waging a war on terror, and bringing Osama bin Laden and his followers to justice. Both made for good rhetoric. But they also were fundamentally contradictory. A war is not a judicial inquiry, and a criminal investigation is not part of war.
An analogy might be drawn from Pearl Harbor. Imagine that in addition to stating that the United States was at war with Japan, Franklin Roosevelt also called for bringing the individual Japanese pilots who struck Hawaii to justice under American law. This would make no sense. As an act of war, the Japanese action fell under the rules of war as provided for in international law, the U.S. Constitution and the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). Japanese pilots could not be held individually responsible for the lawful order they received. In the same sense, trying to bring soldiers to trial in a civilian court in the United States would make no sense. Creating a mission in which individual Japanese airmen would be hunted down and tried under the rules of evidence not only would make no sense, it would be impossible. Building a case against them individually also would be impossible. Judges would rule on evidence, on whether an unprejudiced jury could be found, and so on. None of this happened, of course — World War II was a war, not a judicial inquiry.
It is important to consider how wars are conducted. Enemy soldiers are not shot or captured because of what they have done; they are shot and captured because of who they are — members of an enemy military force. War, once launched, is pre-emptive. Soldiers are killed or captured in the course of fighting enemy forces, or even before they have carried out hostile acts. Soldiers are not held responsible for their actions, but neither are they immune to attack just because they have not done anything. Guilt and innocence do not enter into the equation. Certainly, if war crimes are in question, charges may be brought; the UCMJ determines how they will be tried by U.S. forces. Soldiers are tried by courts-martial, not by civilian courts, because of their status as soldiers. Soldiers are tried by a jury of their peers, and their peers are held to be other soldiers.
International law is actually not particularly ambiguous about the status of the members of al Qaeda. The Geneva Conventions do not apply to them because they have not adhered to a fundamental requirement of the Geneva Conventions, namely, identifying themselves as soldiers of an army. Doing so does not mean they must wear a uniform. The postwar Geneva Conventions make room for partisans, something older versions of the conventions did not. A partisan is not a uniformed fighter, but he must wear some form of insignia identifying himself as a soldier to enjoy the conventions’ protections. As Article 4.1.6 puts it, prisoners of war include “Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.” The Geneva Conventions of 1949 does not mention, nor provide protection to, civilians attacking foreign countries without openly carrying arms.
The reasoning behind this is important. During the Franco-Prussian war, French franc-tireurs fired on Prussian soldiers. Ununiformed and without insignia, they melded into the crowd. It was impossible for the Prussians to distinguish between civilians and soldiers, so they fired on both, and civilian casualties resulted. The framers of the Geneva Conventions held the franc-tireurs, not the Prussian soldiers, responsible for the casualties. Their failure to be in uniform forced the Prussians to defend themselves at the cost of civilian lives. The franc-tireurs were seen as using civilians as camouflage. This was regarded as outside the rules of war, and those who carried out such acts were seen as not protected by the conventions. They were not soldiers, and were not to be treated as such.
An Ambiguous Status
Extending protections to partisans following World War II was seen as a major concession. It was done with concerns that it not be extended so far that combatants of irregular forces could legally operate using their ability to blend in with surrounding civilians, and hence a requirement of wearing armbands. The status of purely covert operatives remained unchanged: They were not protected under the Geneva Conventions. Their status remained ambiguous.
During World War II, it was U.S. Army practice to hold perfunctory trials followed by executions. During the Battle of the Bulge, German commandos captured wearing U.S. uniforms — in violation of the Geneva Conventions — were summarily tried in field courts-martial and executed. The idea that such individuals were to be handed over to civilian courts was never considered. The actions of al Qaeda simply were not anticipated in the Geneva Conventions. And to the extent they were expected, they violated the conventions.
Holder’s decision to transfer Khalid Sheikh Mohammed to federal court makes it clear that Mohammed was not a soldier acting in time of war, but a criminal. While during times of war spies are tried as criminals, their status is precarious, particularly if they are members of an enemy army. Enemy soldiers out of uniform carrying out reconnaissance or espionage are subject to military, not civilian, justice, and frequently are executed. A spy captured in the course of collecting information is a civilian, particularly in peacetime, and normally is tried as a criminal with rules of evidence.
Which was Mohammed? Under the Geneva Conventions, his actions in organizing the Sept. 11 attacks, which were carried out without uniforms or other badges of a combatant, denies him status and protection as a POW. Logically, he is therefore a criminal, but if he is, consider the consequences.
Criminal law is focused on punishments meted out after the fact. They rarely have been preventive measures. In either case, they follow strict rules of evidence, require certain treatments of prisoners and so on. For example, prisoners have to be read the Miranda warning. Soldiers are not policeman. They are not trained or expected to protect the legal rights of captives save as POWs under the UCMJ, nor protect the chain of custody of evidence nor countless other things that are required in a civilian court. In criminal law, it is assumed that law enforcement has captured the prisoner and is well-versed in these rules. In this case, the capture was made without any consideration of these matters, nor would one expect such consideration.
Consider further the role of U.S. covert operations in these captures. The United States conducts covert operations in which operatives work out of uniform and are generally not members of the military. Operating outside the United States, they are not protected by U.S. law although they do operate under the laws and regulations promulgated by the U.S. government. Much of their operations run counter to international and national law. At the same time, their operations are accepted as best practices by the international system. Some operate under cover of diplomatic immunity but carry out operations incompatible with their status as diplomats. Others operate without official cover. Should those under unofficial cover be captured, their treatment falls under local law, if such exists. The Geneva Conventions do not apply to them, nor was it intended to.
Spies, saboteurs and terrorists fall outside the realm of international law. This class of actors falls under the category of national law, leaving open the question of their liability if they conduct acts inimical to a third country. Who has jurisdiction? The United States is claiming that Mohammed is to be tried under the criminal code of the United States for actions planned in Afghanistan but carried out by others in the United States. It is a defensible position, but where does this leave American intelligence planners working at CIA headquarters for actions carried out by others in a third country? Are they subject to prosecution in the third country? Those captured in the third country clearly are, but the claim here is that Mohammed is subject to prosecution under U.S. laws for actions carried out by others in the United States. And that creates an interesting reciprocal liability.
A Failure to Evolve
The fact is that international law has not evolved to deal with persons like Mohammed. Or more precisely, most legal discussion under international law is moving counter to the Geneva Conventions’ intent, which was to treat the franc-tireurs as unworthy of legal protection because they were not soldiers and were violating the rules of war. International law wants to push Mohammed into a category where he doesn’t fit, providing protections that are not apparent under the Geneva Conventions. The United States has shoved him into U.S. criminal law, where he doesn’t fit either, unless the United States is prepared to accept reciprocal liability for CIA personnel based in the United States planning and supporting operations in third countries. The United States has never claimed, for example, that the KGB planners who operated agents in the United States on behalf of the Soviet Union were themselves subject to criminal prosecution.
A new variety of warfare has emerged in which treatment as a traditional POW doesn’t apply and criminal law doesn’t work. Criminal law creates liabilities the United States doesn’t want to incur, and it is not geared to deal with a terrorist like Mohammed. U.S. criminal law assumes that capture is in the hands of law enforcement officials. Rights are prescribed and demanded, including having lawyers present and so forth. Such protections are practically and theoretically absurd in this case: Mohammed is not a soldier and he is not a suspected criminal presumed innocent until proven guilty. Law enforcement is not a practical counter to al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan. A nation cannot move from the rules of counterterrorism to an American courtroom; they are incompatible modes of operation. Nor can a nation use the code of criminal procedures against a terrorist organization operating transnationally. Instead, they must be stopped before they commit their action, and issuing search warrants and allowing attorneys present at questioning is not an option.
Therefore — and now we move to the political reality — it is difficult to imagine how the evidence accumulated against Mohammed could enter a courtroom. Ignoring the methods of questioning, which is a separate issue, how can one prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt without compromising sources and methods, and why should one? Mohammed was on a battlefield but not operating as a soldier. Imagine doing criminal forensics on a battlefield to prove the criminal liability of German commandos wearing American uniforms.
In our mind, there is a very real possibility that Mohammed could be found not guilty in a courtroom. The cases of O.J. Simpson and of Jewish Defense League head Rabbi Meir Kahane’s killer, El Sayyid Nosair — both found not guilty despite overwhelming evidence — come to mind. Juries do strange things, particularly amid what will be the greatest media circus imaginable in the media capital of the world.
But it may not be the jury that is the problem. A federal judge will have to ask the question of whether prejudicial publicity of such magnitude has occurred that Mohammed can’t receive a fair trial. (This is probably true.) Questions will be raised about whether he has received proper legal counsel, which undoubtedly he hasn’t. Issues about the chain of custody of evidence will be raised; given that he was held by troops and agents, and not by law enforcement, the chances of compromised evidence is likely. The issue of torture will, of course, also be raised but that really isn’t the main problem. How do you try a man under U.S. legal procedures who was captured in a third country by non-law enforcement personnel, and who has been in military custody for seven years?
There is a nontrivial possibility that he will be acquitted or have his case thrown out of court, which would be a foreign policy disaster for the United States. Some might view it as a sign of American adherence to the rule of law and be impressed, others might be convinced that Mohammed was not guilty in more than a legal sense and was held unjustly, and others might think the United States has bungled another matter.
The real problem here is international law, which does not address acts of war committed by non-state actors out of uniform. Or more precisely, it does, but leaves them deliberately in a state of legal limbo, with captors left free to deal with them as they wish. If the international legal community does not like the latter, it is time they did the hard work of defining precisely how a nation deals with an act of war carried out under these circumstances.
The international legal community has been quite vocal in condemning American treatment of POWs after 9/11, but it hasn’t evolved international law, even theoretically, to cope with this. Sept. 11 is not a crime in the proper sense of the term, and prosecuting the guilty is not the goal. Instead, it was an act of war carried out outside the confines of the Geneva Conventions. The U.S. goal is destroying al Qaeda so that it can no longer function, not punishing those who have acted. Similarly the goal in 1941 was not punishing the Japanese pilots at Pearl Harbor but destroying the Japanese Empire, and any Japanese soldier was a target who could be killed without trial in the course of combat. If it wishes to solve this problem, international law will have to recognize that al Qaeda committed an act of war, and its destruction has legal sanction without judicial review. And if some sort of protection is to be provided al Qaeda operatives out of uniform, then the Geneva Conventions must be changed, and with it the status of spies and saboteurs of all countries.
Holder has opened up an extraordinarily complex can of worms with this decision. As U.S. attorney general, he has committed himself to proving Mohammed’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt while guaranteeing that his constitutional rights (for a non-U.S. citizen captured and held outside the United States under extraordinary circumstances by individuals not trained as law enforcement personnel, no less) are protected. It is Holder’s duty to ensure Mohammed’s prosecution, conviction and fair treatment under the law. It is hard to see how he can.
Whatever the politics of this decision — and all such decisions have political dimensions — the real problem faced by both the Obama and Bush administrations has been the failure of international law to evolve to provide guidance on dealing with combatants such as al Qaeda. International law has clung to a model of law governing a very different type of warfare despite new realities. International law must therefore either reaffirm the doctrine that combatants who do not distinguish themselves from noncombatants are not due the protections of international law, or it must clearly define what those protections are. Otherwise, international law discredits itself.