9/11 Defendants to plead guilty

http://www.reuters.com/article/newsO...

An interesting turn of events. However, after so many years in harsh imprisonment I am reminded of a party policy from Orwell's 1984 - 'we make the brain perfect before we blow it out.'

Nevertheless, this should make some people happy.

Yeah, I'm pretty conflicted about this. These guys were going to be found guilty one way or another. There are lots of Americans out there crying for blood but have a little voice in the back of their head that says, "hey, maybe these aren't the right guys." A guilty plea does nothing but silence that mote of hesitation.

Also, I am sure there'll be people who'll claim these confessions as proof positive that "harsh interrogation techniques" do work and produce results.

Gorilla.800.lbs wrote:

Also, I am sure there'll be people who'll claim these confessions as proof positive that "harsh interrogation techniques" do work and produce results.

If they'd held me in Gitmo for this long, I'd be pleading guilty to planning the 9/11 terrorist attacks, assassinating JFK, faking the moon landing, and having betrayed Jesus (and framing Judas).

kaostheory wrote:
Gorilla.800.lbs wrote:

Also, I am sure there'll be people who'll claim these confessions as proof positive that "harsh interrogation techniques" do work and produce results.

If they'd held me in Gitmo for this long, I'd be pleading guilty to planning the 9/11 terrorist attacks, assassinating JFK, faking the moon landing, and having betrayed Jesus (and framing Judas).

You're not looking at the bright side. Now we have an opportunity to solve all these crimes all in one shot!

From the article:

The note said all five wished to plead guilty and withdraw any pending motions filed by their military-appointed lawyers, whom they do not trust and have tried to fire.

If the Military appointed me a military lawyer for my defense, in a military tribunal with military people asking as the judge and jury, Heck yeah I would think its a farce too. They don't want a show trial and I don't blame them

My problem is that they will get the death penalty.. and martyrdom. Put them in for life in a Supermax, and allow them to appeal in civilian courts. It will never happen but I can keep wishing right..

I think a problem we've run into here is that most of us no longer trust the government to detain the right people. It seems like we almost automatically assume they've always got the wrong people because we hear of so many people getting detained for no reason other than somebody told somebody who told somebody that they overheard the suspect say something suspicious. I have to think that they get the right people some of the time. While I have my doubts about a lot of the detainees I don't want to let myself turn into a blindly distrusting know-nothing that always sides with the suspect. Because as we all know no one in prison is ever guilty of anything if you ask them. I think I'm just going to have to work on backing off on the cynicism because we all know that my opinion about a detainees guilt on a gaming website's political forum is extremely important to the functioning of the free world.

Mayfield wrote:

My problem is that they will get the death penalty.. and martyrdom.

I'd like to think that the criminal's desires have no bearing on justice. If the appropriate punishment for someone's crime is execution, it should not matter that the criminal wants to die.

We're talking about very important things here. Life, and justice. These things are too important to resolve with a judgment that could be appended with, "that'll show him!"

Mohammed already confessed to plotting to blow up buildings that weren't even constructed when he was jailed.

Seriously.

Malor wrote:

Mohammed already confessed to plotting to blow up buildings that weren't even constructed when he was jailed.

Seriously.

I remember that. IIRC, given timetables and his access to information, it would be impossible for him to even know about some of them.

I vote putting them in solitary and for exercise they have to farm pigs. I think that is fair, also add bacon flavoring to everything.. even the water.

Pharacon wrote:

I vote putting them in solitary and for exercise they have to farm pigs. I think that is fair, also add bacon flavoring to everything.. even the water. :)

Thanks for the insightful contribution.

You are welcome Lobster, also I think making them watch Christmas specials 24/7 would be fun as well.

And if they actually happen to be innocent?

Oh, wait, no, that's not even possible. They're accused of involvement in the 9/11 attacks. They must be guilty.

Farscry wrote:

And if they actually happen to be innocent?

Oh, wait, no, that's not even possible. They're accused of involvement in the 9/11 attacks. They must be guilty.

Well, they could be guilty too. It is a possibility.

Shoal07 wrote:
Farscry wrote:

And if they actually happen to be innocent?

Oh, wait, no, that's not even possible. They're accused of involvement in the 9/11 attacks. They must be guilty.

Well, they could be guilty too. It is a possibility.

I certainly don't deny that. But there are many people who just assume they are, and I have a problem with that. Especially when they start talking about the ways they'd love to humiliate and degrade them because of biased and ignorant assumptions.

Prederick wrote:
Pharacon wrote:

I vote putting them in solitary and for exercise they have to farm pigs. I think that is fair, also add bacon flavoring to everything.. even the water. :)

Because Muslims are like vampires. If they touch pork they BURST INTO FLAMES.

You're being purposefully obtuse, right? For the sake of my faith in humanity, say you're being obtuse.

Nah. He's just being consistent. If you review Pharacon's posts within (and sometimes even outside) P&C for the last couple of months or so, you'll conlcude that they're pretty much all like that. On a remarkable range of topics -- whether it's about sticking it to The [Black] Man, eating squid, or brutalizing detainees -- Pharacon follows exactly the same snide hyperbole approach.

Phara, I think you aren't quite realizing it yet just how often you resorts to this kind of trivial negativity.

Pharacon wrote:

I vote putting them in solitary and for exercise they have to farm pigs. I think that is fair, also add bacon flavoring to everything.. even the water. :)

Because Muslims are like vampires. If they touch pork they BURST INTO FLAMES. Also, Buddhists have super powers from their past lives. Or Hindus, whatever, whichever religion gives me LASER BEAM EYES.

You're being purposefully obtuse, right? For the sake of my faith in humanity, say you're being obtuse.

Farscry wrote:

I certainly don't deny that. But there are many people who just assume they are, and I have a problem with that. Especially when they start talking about the ways they'd love to humiliate and degrade them because of biased and ignorant assumptions.

I don't assume they are guilty, because we will never see any evidence that links them to the attacks. All we ever will get is hearsay and what the government releases to the public because of these military tribunals. Is there any chance that the people of the U.S. are ever going to see one ounce of real evidence against these people??

I believe that they have the right to a fair trial, period. It doesn't matter what country they are from, if the evidence is strong and damning then it shouldn't matter. But if all the evidence consists of is hearsay and coerced confessions then it doesn't mean squat.

I 100% agree with you Mayfield. Just sayin'.

Kehama wrote:

I have to think that they get the right people some of the time.

Well I suppose this gets back to your idea of justice. If you think the burden of proof should be with the accuser, then 'some of the time' is still pretty bad. Unfortunately, looking at the record, only about scant few percent of those detained under US terrorism law are charged with anything and last I heard the average sentence was 11 months. Normally it ends up being about immigration violations.

Speaking of detention and immigration, you might not have heard of of Australia's indefinate detention scandals. Unlike the US where you like your illegal immigrants to roam about picking fruit, we lock up anyone we find - sometimes on tiny pacific islands. One of our larger camps is in the middle of the desert in decent army class barracks.

They get decent care, but it is not comfortable and the worst part is they never know when they will get out. They can leave when they no longer apply for entry into Australia, or when their identity is confirmed - most arrive with no ID at all. It seems the 'indefinate' part of this is the real killer. It seems for people so held suicide is not uncommon. In one case a family waiting 18 months or so, including children, sewed their lips together with string in protest... and they had the option to leave. Can't imagine what they faced at home.

Decide if it is relevant, but it comes to mind - in Tasmania the British had a 'silent' prison. Inmates and guards wore soft shoes, prisoners could never speak lest they be beaten and were directed not by voice but hand signals. The effect of this was so dramatic that they built an insane asylum next door as this was so often the destination of those released.

I would also echo Mayfield's comments.

They probably are guilty, but the evidence against them is hopelessly tainted. We have three choices: press ahead with bogus cases, hold them indefinitely without charge, or set them free.

It seems to me that the only just solution would be to set them free; this would be wildly unpopular, of course, but after our egregious misbehavior, that's the least we should do. Even though we know they'll probably start plotting against us the minute they're out, we should release and even compensate them for the damages done.

And then, of course, we should watch them like hawks -- if we can catch them again, we do it by the book and let the judge and/or jury decide.

(and we definitely shouldn't "release" them and then assassinate them later. That would be even worse.)

I KNOW this is opening up a gigantic can of worms and that those worms have box cutters and are coming after me, but didn't I read once that the only direct link we have between Bin Laden and 9/11 is that he claimed responsibility? Which would mean if Bin Laden is lying, he is in fact NOT the guy we're looking for? I never believed that so I didn't read up on it but hopefully someone else did.

Malor wrote:

Mohammed already confessed to plotting to blow up buildings that weren't even constructed when he was jailed.

Seriously.

Now That's What I Call Intel.

Well, it fits bin Laden's MO -- a carefully, carefully planned attack on the World Trade Center -- and he's claimed responsibility, so I don't think too many people have dug further.

The man can get airtime if he wants it, so he could easily have denied it, or someone else could have claimed it.

Al Qaeda/bin Laden seems like a reasonable assumption without compelling evidence to the contrary.

Malor wrote:

Al Qaeda/bin Laden seems like a reasonable assumption without compelling evidence to the contrary.

We went to war over this, Malor. Reasonable assumptions aren't good enough for me.

Just to be Devils Advocate for the moment is it possible that the government is acting on information not available to the general public . and is it also possible that they don't want to compromise that sort of information .. like perhaps an informant close to Bin Laden for example ....

Having said that ultimately our (the U.S)government is responsible for Both Saddam's Regime and the Bin Laden Family's fortune perhaps we should be trying some of our own leaders ..........

LobsterMobster wrote:

I KNOW this is opening up a gigantic can of worms and that those worms have box cutters and are coming after me, but didn't I read once that the only direct link we have between Bin Laden and 9/11 is that he claimed responsibility? Which would mean if Bin Laden is lying, he is in fact NOT the guy we're looking for? I never believed that so I didn't read up on it but hopefully someone else did.

The 9/11 Commission Report is actually very compelling reading, and I recommend that you check it out. You can purchase a printed copy of it in most bookstores, or you can download it for free (9/11 Commission Report). It does a good job of summarizing the evidence against Osama bin Ladin and does cite its sources. Some of those sources are, yes, Khalid Sheikh Mohammad's interrogation but not all of them are; there are good reasons to believe he is responsible that are not based on torture and do not require taking his word for it.

I read part of the commission report when it came out. Mostly the transcription of the events on that day, since I found that the most compelling part.

For the record, I do believe that Bin Laden is the right guy. What I worry is that if he were an American, getting a fair trial in an American court, he would be found not guilty due to lack of evidence. That either means our judicial system is messed up or, right or wrong, we were reckless to invade a country to try to get him and his buddies.

LobsterMobster wrote:

I read part of the commission report when it came out. Mostly the transcription of the events on that day, since I found that the most compelling part.

For the record, I do believe that Bin Laden is the right guy. What I worry is that if he were an American, getting a fair trial in an American court, he would be found not guilty due to lack of evidence. That either means our judicial system is messed up or, right or wrong, we were reckless to invade a country to try to get him and his buddies.

He would be found guilty based on the breadth of the evidence. However, some, but not all, of the evidence would be inadmissible because it is based on information collected from suspects who were tortured.

LobsterMobster wrote:

We went to war over this, Malor. Reasonable assumptions aren't good enough for me.

An uncoerced confession plus supporting evidence is certainly enough to convict in court.