It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Obama, KSM Will Get ‘Full Military Trial’

page: 3
7
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 14 2009 @ 10:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Jakes51
 


Chicago politics?What does that gain obama? I mean even if he could prosecute Bush himself what does that get him?A weaker America?

and is this just a side result?www.abovetopsecret.com...



[edit on 14-11-2009 by genius/idoit]

[edit on 14-11-2009 by genius/idoit]




posted on Nov, 15 2009 @ 02:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by genius/idoit
reply to post by Jakes51
 


Chicago politics?What does that gain obama? I mean even if he could prosecute Bush himself what does that get him?A weaker America?

and is this just a side result?www.abovetopsecret.com...


It gets him votes he is losing in other arenas for the next election. Obama is forever in campaign mode. Not an attack, just the truth.

A weaker America? Depends on how you look at it. People that support Obama see him as gaining in the world political arena, but some disagree and think he may be bringing America down a few notches.

Does attempting to gain points with other countries count as weakening America or strengthening it?

I think the trial is indeed designed to try the former administration. That of course, is my opinioon, and remains to be seen.

If it can bring out the truth about 9/11, and a ton of other things, it could be good. It could be bad, too.

Like I said, it will be interesting to see how this plays out.



posted on Nov, 15 2009 @ 03:22 PM
link   
For one I do not know wether it's ok or not to bring KSM to NY for trial. It makes sense as he is not termed as Prisoner of War*POW*..if he was it would come under Geneva Convention and Bush could be tried of war crimes for illegal war in Iraq and detaine abuse and totrture as International Criminal Court/Geneva Convention stipulates.

KSM is not detained under status of Prisoner of War but Enemy Combatant, thus he is eligible for trial in civil court.

WASHINGTON, Feb. 8, 2002 – It is because the United States places such emphasis on the Geneva Convention that American officials do not consider Al Qaeda covered by the agreement nor are they willing to award the Taliban detainees POW status.

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld during a Pentagon press briefing today discussed presidential decisions that White House spokesman Ari Fleischer announced Feb. 7.

President Bush, Fleischer said, had decided that the Geneva Convention of 1949 applies to the conflict with the Taliban in Afghanistan, but not to the conflict with Al Qaeda terrorists in Afghanistan or anywhere else. He also determined that Taliban detainees do not meet the convention's criteria for prisoner of war status.

White House lawyers thought long and hard about the situation before making recommendations to Bush, Rumsfeld said. The lawyers were worried about the precedent their decision could set about detainees in future conflicts, he added.

"Prudence dictated that the U.S. government take care in determining the status of Taliban and Al Qaeda detainees," he said. "When the Geneva Convention was signed in 1949, it was crafted by sovereign states to deal with conflicts between sovereign states." The current war on terrorism is not a conflict envisioned by the framers of the Geneva Convention, he said.

Source: www.defenselink.mil...
Bush and Rumsfield emphasised these prisoners should not come under POW status so they use the loophole in Geneva Convention.

While keeping in mind only POW's are tried in millitary tribunal and not enemy combatants, the previous administration twisted the rules as suited to them. These prisoners should have been tried in a Civil Court from the beginning under the status of "Enemy Combatant".

Millitary Tribunal is designed to put on trial P.O.W and not enemy combatants.



posted on Nov, 15 2009 @ 03:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Libertygal
reply to post by Stormdancer777
 


Note too, he was senator Obama in that speech, back before I guess he thought about having to sign the death warrants if they are found guilty, and the implications of such. This way, if found guilty, the blood is not his hands. That in itself is fairly telling.


I know where you are coming from with those relegious bigoted statements. Instead of discussing facts you are bringing religion into this which I have seen you do in numerous Obama related threads. Finally, I have to say it to you why don't you put those bigoted religious views of your's where the sun never shines.

What do you mean by "blood is not in his hands"? I will tell you , you mean to say since Obama is muslim he would hesitate to put anyother muslim on trial which would result in his death. Why dont you say clearly your disturbing religious views insteadd of vieled statements?

Another thing to be noted here, even if he got death sentence in a millitary tribunal or civil court it will be the judge in both cases who will sign the court ruling and not the president. So technically Obama will anyway not have "blood on his hands".

People like you make me sick.



new topics

 
7
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join