Six charged for 9/11

[Captain Seafort]

US charges six suspects over 9/11

The Pentagon has announced charges against six Guantanamo Bay prisoners over their alleged involvement in the 11 September 2001 attacks in the US.

Prosecutors will seek the death penalty for the six, who include alleged plot mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.

The charges, the first for Guantanamo inmates directly related to 9/11, are expected to be heard by a controversial military tribunal system.

About 3,000 people died in the hijacked plane attacks.

The Guantanamo Bay detention centre, in south-east Cuba, began to receive US military prisoners in January 2002. Hundreds have been released without charge but about 275 remain and the US hopes to try about 80.

Tribunal process

Brig Gen Thomas Hartmann, a legal adviser to the head of the Pentagon's Office of Military Commissions, said the charges alleged a "long-term, highly sophisticated plan by al-Qaeda to attack the US".

He said there would be "no secret trials" and that they would be "as completely open as possible".

"Relatively little amounts of evidence will be classified," Gen Hartmann said.

The other five defendants are Ramzi Binalshibh, a Yemeni, Walid Bin Attash, also from Yemen, Ali Abd al-Aziz Ali, who was born in Balochistan, Pakistan, and raised in Kuwait, Mustafa Ahmad al-Hawsawi, a Saudi, and Mohammed al-Qahtani.

Gen Hartmann said the charges included conspiracy, murder in violation of the laws of war, attacking civilians, destruction of property and terrorism.

All but Mr Qahtani and Mr Hawsawi are also charged with hijacking or hazarding an aircraft.

The charges listed "169 overt acts allegedly committed by the defendants in furtherance of the September 11 events".

Gen Hartmann said: "The accused will have his opportunity to have his day in court.

"It's our obligation to move the process forward, to give these people their rights."

In listing more details of the charges against the defendants, Gen Hartmann alleged that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed had proposed the attacks to al-Qaeda leader Osama Bin Laden in 1996, had obtained funding and overseen the operation and the training of hijackers in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, a Kuwaiti of Pakistani extraction, was said to have been al-Qaeda's third in command when he was captured in Pakistan in March 2003.

He has reportedly admitted to decapitating kidnapped US journalist Daniel Pearl in 2002 but these charges do not relate to that.

The BBC's Vincent Dowd in Washington says Khalid Sheikh Mohammed has said he planned every part of the 9/11 attacks but that his confession may prove problematic as the CIA admitted using controversial "waterboarding" techniques.

Human rights groups regard the procedure as torture.

Legal challenge

The charges will now be sent to Susan Crawford, the convening authority for the military commissions, to determine whether they will be referred to trial.

THE CHARGES
Conspiracy, murder in violation of the law of war, attacking civilians, attacking civilian objects, intentionally causing serious bodily injury, destruction of property in violation of the law of war, terrorism and providing material support for terrorism (all six defendants)
Hijacking or hazarding a vessel (four defendants only - Ramzi Binalshibh, Walid Bin Attash, Ali Abd al-Aziz Ali and Khalid Sheikh Mohammed)

Any trials would be held by military tribunal under the terms of the Military Commissions Act, passed by the US Congress in 2006.

The Act set up tribunals to try terror suspects who were not US citizens.

The law is being challenged by two prisoners at Guantanamo Bay, who say they are being deprived of their rights to have their cases heard by a US civilian court.

Responding to the new charges, a representative of Mohammed al-Qahtani said they would create "show trials".

Centre for Constitutional Rights in New York executive director Vincent Warren said: "These trials will be using evidence obtained by torture as a means to convict someone and execute them and that is absolutely abhorrent to what we believe in here in America.''

Nineteen men hijacked four planes in the 9/11 attacks. Two planes hit the World Trade Center in New York, another the Pentagon in Washington and the fourth crashed in Pennsylvania.

It's a great shame that the act of bringing these murderers to justice will be forever tarnished by the manner of their trial, and by the fact that their inevitable convictions will probably be rendered unsafe thanks to the torture used against them by the US military. I never thought I'd see the day when civilians would be tried in military courts for a civilian offence by a western democracy.

[Tsukiyumi]

Honestly, since these people follow organizations that have openly declared fatwa, or "holy war" against the U.S. and our allies, I would class them as being soldiers rather than civillians. Not that I agree with their detainment without charges for the last seven years, but if you join an organization that has declared war on a superpower, you should expect serious consequences. Just because they are members of an organization rather than a soldier in service of a country makes them no less of a combatant.

[Captain Seafort]

Honestly, since these people follow organizations that have openly declared fatwa, or "holy war" against the U.S. and our allies, I would class them as being soldiers rather than civillians. Not that I agree with their detainment without charges for the last seven years, but if you join an organization that has declared war on a superpower, you should expect serious consequences. Just because they are members of an organization rather than a soldier in service of a country makes them no less of a combatant.

They're not "combatants", they're not soldiers, they're not "at war". Classifying them as such merely panders to their own delusions of grandeur. They're simple criminals, and should be treated as such. 9/11 was one of the worse cases of mass-murder in history, but it was still murder, no different in principle than if a single individual was stabbed to death by a mugger.

[Tsukiyumi]

Like I said, a fatwa means "holy war". I'd say that makes a pretty clear statement that we are at war with these people. The fact that they aren't professional soldiers shouldn't change the rules. Are guerilla fighters not soldiers? How about privateers?

[Graham Kennedy]

Honestly, since these people follow organizations that have openly declared fatwa, or "holy war" against the U.S. and our allies, I would class them as being soldiers rather than civillians.

If that is so then there can be no trial nor any punishment for their actions. They cannot be interrogated beyond name rank and serial number if any, and they must be released without further problems as soon as the war is over.

Is that what you want?

[Reliant121]

Like I said, a fatwa means "holy war". I'd say that makes a pretty clear statement that we are at war with these people. The fact that they aren't professional soldiers shouldn't change the rules. Are guerilla fighters not soldiers? How about privateers?

that would be like the crusades...they weren't technically, at least i don't think they were, official wars....

[Tsukiyumi]

Of course that isn't what I would want. Does the geneva convention apply to guerilla fighters, privateers, or mercenaries? I thought that was only between countries, but I can't recall. Besides, they would be held for the rest of their lives anyways were that true. I don't see an end to this war.

[Captain Seafort]

Like I said, a fatwa means "holy war". I'd say that makes a pretty clear statement that we are at war with these people.

Wrong - in Islam a fatwa is merely a judgement made by a religious leader, the word for "holy war" is jihad. In any event, it is merely a statement that Osama bin Laden and his cohorts consider their actions against the western world in general and the United States in particular to be a war. That doesn't make it fact. They could consider the moon to be made of green cheese for all I care.

Giving captured member of the IRA political status was one of the worst mistakes made in the early 1970s - real progress only started to be made after criminalisation in the late 70s. If al-Qaida members object to be treated like the common criminals they are, fine - that's their problem.

[Tsukiyumi]

Okay, I'm busted on that one, but a fatwa was issued for a jihad to begin. This is a bit of a melon scratcher, really, as this war is really between Islam and Christanity, not between countries (at least before that decree).

So, if they were charged as criminals instead, it would be a federal trial, and they would still be excecuted. Plus, even as soldiers, they are charged with war crimes and would also be excecuted, like a lot of Nazis were after WW2.

[Captain Seafort]

Of course that isn't what I would want. Does the geneva convention apply to guerilla fighters, privateers, or mercenaries?

Yes. The requirements of Geneva are that combatants have a defined chain of command, wear a distinguishing mark of some kind (be it full uniform or merely an armband), carry their weapons openly, and be discriminate and proportional in their operations. Note that even if they fail to obey these requirements, that does not mean they forfeit the protection of the Convention - simply that they can be charged with war crimes

[Tsukiyumi]

So, black ops special forces would be treated as criminals rather than soldiers. Hmm. Good to know.

[Captain Seafort]

Okay, I'm busted on that one, but a fatwa was issued for a jihad to begin. This is a bit of a melon scratcher, really, as this war is really between Islam and Christanity, not between countries (at least before that decree).

It isn't a "war" between religions at all - it's a police operation to apprehend specific criminals responsible for the murder of nearly three thousand people on the 11th September 2001, in New York, Washingon DC and Pennsylvania.

So, if they were charged as criminals instead, it would be a federal trial, and they would still be excecuted.

Correct. The trial would, however, be carried out under the auspices of the legal system in whose jurisdiction the offences were committed. Not by a military tribunal, with none of the protection of the rights of the defendant that western democracies rightly consider so important.

[Captain Seafort]

So, black ops special forces would be treated as criminals rather than soldiers. Hmm. Good to know.

If they weren't wearing uniform, yes - why do you think they're called "black ops".

[Tsukiyumi]

It isn't a "war" between religions at all - it's a police operation to apprehend specific criminals responsible for the murder of nearly three thousand people on the 11th September 2001, in New York, Washingon DC and Pennsylvania.

I was referring to the wider war that is most certainly between religions. At least, it is in their minds.

Correct. The trial would, however, be carried out under the auspices of the legal system in whose jurisdiction the offences were committed. Not by a military tribunal, with none of the protection of the rights of the defendant that western democracies rightly consider so important.

Either way, they end up dead, but I understand your point about the differences in procedure.

[Tsukiyumi]

...If they weren't wearing uniform, yes - why do you think they're called "black ops".

Har har, Seafort. I just was never sure about whether they'd be tried in a military court. I suppose it would depend on the country. Say, another question about the Geneva Convention: does it apply to every country on earth, or only between the ones who signed it?