from history commons: US Attorney General Eric Holder recently announced that five detainees would be moved from Guantanamo Bay to New York, where they would stand trial for carrying out the 9/11 attacks. However, five other detainees will continue to be tried before military commissions, which have lower standards of evidence. The five detainees coming to New York have previously indicated they intend to plead guilty, although the five to be tried before military commissions have not.The New York five are:Khalid Sheikh Mohammed;Ramzi bin al-Shibh; Ali Abdul Aziz Ali; Mustafa al-Hawsawi; and Khallad bin Attash. They indicated their intention to plead guilty at a hearing in Gunatanamo on 8 December 2008.
According to this McClatchy article, the five Holder says will be tried before military commissions are: Ibrahim al Qosi, who is trying to have incriminating statements he says were made under torture/coercion suppressed and wants to go home to Sudan; Omar Khadr, who is fighting the charges against him. His lawyers claim most of the evidence against him is based on statements he made under coercion; Ahmed al Darbi, who says he was tortured into confessing; Noor Uthman Mohammed, who denied many of the charges against him; and Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, who says he’s innocent and was also tortured into confessing.
As I pointed out earlier today, there is a lot of evidence against al-Nashiri. However, based on what I know of the Khadr case, he would stand a very good chance of acquittal, unless the bar was lowered from beyond reasonable doubt to “I guess he might have done it.” The other three to be tried before military commissions I don’t know much about.
Is it just a coincidence that the five detainees who have indicated they intend to plead guilty are going to New York, but the ones that are fighting the charges are getting military commissions?
related updates:
what happens if a 9/11 terrorist defendant is found not guilty?*
mukasey: 'very high' risk of attack over nyc 9/11 trial*
don’t execute khalid sheik mohammed*
nytimes book review: 'the ground truth'*
video: rethinking 9/11 -
why truth & reconciliation are better strategies than war*
9/11 monuments to the 'scene of the crime'*
obama says ksm will be convicted & executed*
cia paid millions of dollars to isi since 9/11*
kean opposes ny 9/11 trial*
video: obama 'crossed the line' by predicting ksm death sentence*
11/20 update: 'heads i win, tails you lose':
holder says 9/11 accused to remain in prison even if acquitted*
2 comments:
How long and How many bad reports before
we learn the lesson - We need to form opposable non violent
coalitions Using Obama's own words that can
move policies for real... www.bailoutmainstreetnow.com this will take some hard work
but people have to start by adding positive contributions
so that we can effect real change
People who want to do something positive -
www.bailoutmainstreetnow.com - Channel your energies in a positive way. Here are some suggestions, build a web page, phone your congressman, attend meetings in your local area with like minded people to form or support freedom coalitions, email your local representatives, call Washington, have group viewings videos that have verified information pertaining to amendment rights... www.bailoutmainstreetnow.com
This is the response to a thread on the UKClimbing.com forums regarding History Commons article:
"It's not just a coincidence but not for the reasons offered.
They are also the only ones charged with Capital offences (that means they face the death penalty).
The prosecution has to announce if the death penalty is going to be sought, so the jurors have to declare if they oppose the death penalty.
Also if the defendents plead guilty when the death penalty is being sought, then an automatic not-guilty plea in entered on their behalf and the prosecution still has to prove their case.
So the pleas are not the relevant question here."
Statute numbers have been requested of the poster of the above comment so that this can be verified. Can anyone else verify?
Post a Comment