• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Terrorist freed, terrorist victim's widow deported

gturner

Admiral
Not that it was the same attack or anything.

Mohamedou Ould Slahi was accused in the 9/11 Commission report of helping recruit Mohammed Atta and other members of the Al Qaeda cell in Hamburg, Germany, that took part in the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

Military prosecutors suspected Slahi of links to other Al Qaeda operations, and considered seeking the death penalty against him while preparing possible charges in 2003 and 2004.

U.S. District Judge James Robertson granted Slahi's petition for habeas corpus, effectively finding the government lacked legal grounds to hold him.

Fox News link

We probably didn't read him his Miranda warning, either.

Meanwhile,

The Israeli widow of a rabbi who was killed in the 2008 Mumbai attacks faces restrictions on her time in the U.S., where her eight children live.

Thirty-seven-year-old Frumet Teitelbaum's children, ages 2 to 14, are all American citizens and live with her late husband's family in Brooklyn.

Her attorney, Michael Wildes, says Teitelbaum has been cited for overusing her visitor's visa while visiting the children, making it difficult for her to extend her stay or become a permanent resident.

news link

Shouldn't having eight American kids qualify you for something?

The world is a strange place. :shifty:
 
Well, the guy who recruited Mohammad Atta and most of the other 9/11 hijackers is going to walk. Khalid Sheik Muhammed will probably also walk. I'd assume if we captured Osama Bin Laden that he'd be let go, too.

But if you like spending time with your eight American children, well, we're not going to be quite such pushovers.

We have strange priorities.
 
Because Muhammedou Slahi is on the loose! :lol:

Israel just wouldn't be safe.

This is one of the many problems with civilian courts and terrorists. The don't actually have jurisdiction overseas, where all the events in question took place, and until recently people we captured weren't given Miranda warnings because those are for U.S. citizens, not enemy combatants.

Heck, it's probably against the Geneva convention to give a Miranda warning to an enemy combatant, because it directly implies that they'll be dragged into court, which is definitely against the Geneva convention.

I just thought it was a funny juxtaposition of stories, almost like a Monty Python skit.

"So, what'd ya do?"

"I worked for the world's most wanted man, Osama Bin Laden, and recruited a cell of international terrorists who flew jetliners into skyscrapers, killing 3,000 innocent people."

"Oh, that all? You're free to go. Next case."

"I'm a poor widow with eight American kids and would like to extend my visa. Little Tommy has the flu and Janine needs constant supervision."

"Sergeant, arrest that woman!"
 
really sometimes it helps to learn more of the story..
former marine prosecutor speaks out..

i beat fox wont mention something like this..

they started using outlawed mental torture on
slahi including the following..

Couch learned that Slahi was being subjected to what he eventually deemed mental torture. Couch said officials would move Slahi to a different location every few hours, even during the night. This lack of sleep, which Couch said he experienced when he was in the Marine Corps, eventually “starts working on your noodle pretty good.”
and this..:wtf:
In another instance, Couch said officials took Slahi outside and made him believe he was about to be executed. Later on, an interrogator pretended to be an official from the White House with a letter from the Department of Defense and the State Department that stated Slahi’s mother was going to be transported to Guantanamo Bay. The false letter expressed concern that guards would not be adequately able to protect Slahi’s mother from the male prisoners, implying that she would be gang raped, Couch said.

“When I was finally holding this false letter, [and] I had this [other] classified information that I can’t discuss, and all this other stuff [already mentioned], I got to a point where I said, ‘Alright…I have read enough, I have seen enough, I have heard enough, I have had enough, bottom line,’” Couch said.

Couch said he decided to act on his feelings a few weeks later after an experience at church. During a baptism, the preacher, who was reading from a liturgy, asked the congregation if each member promised to seek justice and uphold the dignity of every human being.

“On this Sunday, when I heard that, I could have been the only dude in the church,” Couch said. “It was like a thunderclap to the side of the face…I felt at that moment that I was shaken to my innermost being, [and] that this was a bigger issue and I had to do something.”

Two days later, Couch told the chief prosecutor that he would no longer work on the Slahi case. Couch said the chief prosecutor “attacked the messenger and not the message,” and asked him why he thought he was better than everyone else.

now who here wouldnt have been giving up all kinds of false testimony after first being mentall worked over and then being told only if you admit to all this stuff can you keep your mother from being attacked.


heck and why dosnt fox make a bigger issue about the supposed terrorists who were released by the bush administration.


more on the second story.

part of the problem is she just hadnt bothered to even file..

heck back in the day they even at first tried to deport the widow of a man who died trying to save others after 9/11.
it took until the next year for her to know she could stay even though her children were born in america..
9/11 widow
 
really sometimes it helps to learn more of the story..
former marine prosecutor speaks out..

i beat fox wont mention something like this..

they started using outlawed mental torture on
slahi including the following..

<snip>

And that's part of the point as to why civilian trials are crazy for these guys.

They were never handled in a manner that would make a trial possible, they were handled to extract intelligence about potential threats to the U.S., then to try and gain insights into how their cells operated. Even if the detainees were handled in a manner aimed at putting them on trial, a judge would be hard-pressed to claim his court had any standing to hold someone who never committed a crime on US soil, isn't a US citizen, had never even been to the US until apprehended by the US military back in their home country, etc.

It's not illegal to be an enemy combatant. To a civilian court it's not even illegal to be an illegal combatant. It is, however, illegal to put an enemy combatant on trial for anything other than war crimes.

This is one of the reasons the writ of habeus corpus is usually suspended during war time. You have thousands to hundreds of thousands of enemy combatants you need to detain (POWs), and no recognized civil reason for holding them at all. They were fighting in a war, not holding up liquor stores.
 
actually some case may fly because they have real evidence.
not confessions secured by using torture.

torture is one of those things that look good in a novel but in real life the truth supposedly gained becomes something of ghosts and shadows.
 
Yeah, I haven't seen any evidence that this guy was an unlawful enemy combatant. Gturner, you're the one calling him a terrorist, do you know of reliable evidence?

The story about the lady with the kids sucks, though. I realize she's on a temporary visa and probably should have gone home and then reapplied to come back, but that's a bureaucratic mess and I'd hate to think she can't spend time with her kids just because she's an illegal immigrant (or will be soon).
 
Well, aside from taking calls from Bin Laden's personal satellite phone, there's plenty of evidence against him, linking him to both the recruitment of the 9/11 hijackers, helping them travel to Afghanistan for training, running operations in Hamburg, etc. He was the liason between Al-Qaeda and the actual hijackers and had foreknowledge of the plot.

Earlier he'd been taken into custody a couple of times over the millenium plot. Authorities think he was sent to Canada to activate the cell that was to carry out the bombing of Los Angeles airport.

I mean, if all that doesn't make you a terrorist, what does, flying a plane into a skyscraper?

As for being an illegal enemy combatant, he admits it. He traveled to Afghanistan to serve under Bin Laden against the Soviets. As he is from a country that was not party to the war, and was not a member of any regular army, the Geneva convention clearly defines him as an illegal combatant. However that was against the Soviet Union and we aren't overly concerned about that. I bring up the point because most of the Al-Qaeda people we've rounded up in Afghanistan are not Afghanistanis, not part of a regular army, and so are classifiable as illegal combatants. So far as I know that classification has no meaning under civil law, nor would a classification as a legal enemy combatant.

Basically, since none of the detainees came over here and held up a liquor store, there's no reason they should in a US courtroom or US jail. They haven't done anything illegal, but then a Russian officer launching an ICBM and blowing up New York City isn't actually illegal, either, unless he did it without authorization, in which case he probably violated Russian law, not US law.
 
No. He admits the call was on Bin Laden's satellite phone, as we've confirmed, but the phone was being used by his cousin, a top Bin Laden lieutenant. It's only relevant because our monitoring of Bin Laden's phone was how we intercepted the conversation between him, a top Al Qaeda operative who was the liason between the 9/11 hijackers and Al Qaeda headquarters, and his cousin at Al Qaeda headquarters.
 
What was the circumstances of admitting it? Was it a voluntary admission? If there's as much evidence as you say, he wouldn't have been released.
 
Well, aside from taking calls from Bin Laden's personal satellite phone, there's plenty of evidence against him, linking him to both the recruitment of the 9/11 hijackers, helping them travel to Afghanistan for training, running operations in Hamburg, etc. He was the liason between Al-Qaeda and the actual hijackers and had foreknowledge of the plot.
Earlier he'd been taken into custody a couple of times over the millenium plot. Authorities think he was sent to Canada to activate the cell that was to carry out the bombing of Los Angeles airport.
Shouldnt he be on Canadian or German court, if the committed crimes on those countries and if theres evidence:shifty:?
And why is so difficult to trial terrorists in US civil courts and give them same rights as any other domestic murdered crminal or would get in the US???:shifty:
It worked well with Ramzi Yousef , the WTC bomber.
He was trialed on NY and sentenced to life in prison.
There was no need for torture, camps on Cuba or need to give him some oddball name so they would not need to give him a lawyer.
If theres not enough evidence to show that someone is guilty of crime, he will walk. It does not seem fair but thats the choice most western countries have taken, in order to build a fair justice system.
Im against terrorism and we must figh against it, but we must also remember not to loose ourselfs or our basic rights when doing that. That would be giving them what they want..
 
Well, aside from taking calls from Bin Laden's personal satellite phone, there's plenty of evidence against him, linking him to both the recruitment of the 9/11 hijackers, helping them travel to Afghanistan for training, running operations in Hamburg, etc. He was the liason between Al-Qaeda and the actual hijackers and had foreknowledge of the plot.
Earlier he'd been taken into custody a couple of times over the millenium plot. Authorities think he was sent to Canada to activate the cell that was to carry out the bombing of Los Angeles airport.
Shouldnt he be on Canadian or German court, if the committed crimes on those countries and if theres evidence:shifty:?

Our experience with letting terrorists be tried in foreign courts is pretty awful. The Achille Lauro hijackers being a case in point. Italy didn't even take Abu Abbas into custody, letting him fly on. Some of the other hijackers just walked away while on furlough.

Secondly, a German civil court would try him for what? Recruiting people from a non-EU country to do something in a different non-EU country, with most of the evidence supplied by the intelligence organs of a non-EU country? We probably wouldn't even turn over most of the intelligence to the court, as it's classified.

And why is so difficult to trial terrorists in US civil courts and give them same rights as any other domestic murdered crminal or would get in the US???:shifty:

It worked well with Ramzi Yousef , the WTC bomber.
He was trialed on NY and sentenced to life in prison.
There was no need for torture, camps on Cuba or need to give him some oddball name so they would not need to give him a lawyer.

Yousef built the 1st WTC bomb when he was living in New Jersey. That's illegal and within a US court's jurisdiction.

Designing a bomb in Pakistan is neither.

People around the world who aren't US citizens or residents and who've never been in the US can't be living under US law, which they have no part in writing, have no representation in, etc. If they did, then every country's laws would apply to everyone, everywhere, all the time, and which of us could be sure that we weren't violating some crazy country's laws at some time or another?
 
We have strange priorities.

Based on your example alone, not really, since they're two completely unrelated cases with absolutely no bearing on each other except in your head. I feel for the mother in the second article, but the decision in her case should not in any way be influenced by the first case, or vice versa. I see absolutely no reason why you even posted them together except to try and establish some kind of false connection where none exists.
 
Just compare how many convictions civilian courts have gotten to how many military tribunals have. The facts show quite clearly that it is in the civilian courts that convictions are actually more likely. They read the underwear bomber his rights and he told us everything. When the Bush administration tortured their prisoners those prisoners quit giving useful information.
 
We have strange priorities.

Based on your example alone, not really, since they're two completely unrelated cases with absolutely no bearing on each other except in your head. I feel for the mother in the second article, but the decision in her case should not in any way be influenced by the first case, or vice versa. I see absolutely no reason why you even posted them together except to try and establish some kind of false connection where none exists.

I posted them together to highlight the different standards we're using for militant Islamist terrorists versus Jewish widows who have eight American kids. The 9/11 hijackers were allowed to stay, and their soon-to-be freed recruiter has also applied to stay here and live among us freely, which will probably be granted, but in contrast the lady in the second article will be shown the door.

Michael Moore had his audience up in arms because John Kerry's foreign policy expert let the rest of the Bin Laden family, who are not terrorists, fly back to Saudi Arabia. Now we're letting one of Bin Laden's minions, one who was directly involved in the 9/11 attack, go free, and nobody raises an eyebrow. On the same day the press reports that we're kicking out a Jewish lady who was widowed in the Mumbai terrorist attack.

I see no reason why you'd question this ironic juxtaposition unless it made you very uncomfortable about the leadership of your country.
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top