Obama delays Cole trials

Gonz

molṑn labé
Staff member
Basis information....

These people are not covered by the Geneva Convention since they are not military or non-combatants.

These people are not "criminals" since they did not commit crimes upon US soil.

These poeple are detained in a military detention camp, awaiting trial. Obama has, through executive order & his placement as Commander in Chief, ordered their detention camp closed & their trials ended.

We can either turn them over to another nation (none of which have accepted this offer), we can release them or we can bring them to US soil, which presents considerable legal ramifications.

What "basic information" have I missed?
 

spike

New Member
What "basic information" have I missed?

In addition to the basic information I had to give you in your questions above you also have got some of the below wrong.

These people are not covered by the Geneva Convention since they are not military or non-combatants.

Wrong. U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld that they are covered by article 3.

These people are not "criminals" since they did not commit crimes upon US soil.

Right, we're not sure if some of them have even committed crimes at all until they have a trial.

These people are detained in a military detention camp, awaiting trial. Obama has, through executive order & his placement as Commander in Chief, ordered their detention camp closed & their trials ended.

Wrong again. He ordered a continuance on the trials.

We can either turn them over to another nation (none of which have accepted this offer), we can release them or we can bring them to US soil, which presents considerable legal ramifications.

They can be tried in federal or military courts.
 

jimpeel

Well-Known Member
We should send them to the Hague to be tried by the World Court. Let it be someone else's problem.
 

Gonz

molṑn labé
Staff member
Right, we're not sure if some of them have even committed crimes at all until they have a trial.

These people are not criminals. They are enemy combatants, not eligible for the US justice system. Military tribunals at best.
 

jimpeel

Well-Known Member
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/fir...ess-obama-open-commission-investigate-attack/

USS Cole Families Press Obama to Open Commission to Investigate Attack
Bereaved families asked President Obama to open a 9/11 Commission-like investigation of the USS Cole attack during a closed-door meeting in Washington Friday.


By Catherine Herridge

FOXNews.com

President Obama was pressed by families of the sailors killed in the terrorist strike on the USS Cole to establish a 9/11 Commission-like panel to investigate the attack, FOX News has learned.

Obama met with relatives of Cole sailors and 9/11 victims Friday in the wake of three executive orders he signed last month ordering the closing of the military prison at Guantanamo Bay, where the alleged mastermind of the attack is being held.

The deadly strike is considered a seminal event in the days leading up to 9/11. Seventeen American sailors were killed off the coast of Yemen Oct. 12, 2000, when a suicide bomber rammed his boat into the hull of the Cole.

Click here for photos.

As the Obama administration prepares to review the cases of the 245 detainees held in Guantanamo, the president called in the concerned families to explain his plan to prosecute the detainees outside of military courts.

Some of those present at the meeting have criticized Obama's plan to close the prison, and looked for reassurance that they will see justice served after years of waiting. The family of Cherone Gunn, a 22-year-old seaman killed on the Cole, broached the subject of opening an investigation.

Click here to see Cole families speak about the meeting with President Obama.

Gloria and John Clodfelter, the parents of sailor Kenneth Clodfelter, who lost his life in the attack, were at Friday's meeting with the president and said they also support the idea of an investigative commission for the Cole.

"All of the families were extremely positive about [it]," said John Clodfelter, noting that families felt it was long overdue. "It's something that should have been done within a year of the attack."

According to three sources at the closed-door conference, the president was warned by a member of the Cole contingent that a commission would be unpopular with the Navy and would require investigating the Clinton administration's actions against Al Qaeda. That could be politically tricky -- one democratic administration investigating the possible intelligence failures of another democratic administration.

But Clodfelter, who harbored reservations before the meeting, said he believed the president was not afraid to navigate the thorny territory.

"If you've done something wrong, you've done something wrong regardless of who it is -- Republican, Independent, Democrat, whoever," Clodfelter told FOX News. "This is the one president who really seems like he's willing to go ahead and do something."

The tale of the USS Cole is one of frustration. The bombing occurred in the final months of the Clinton administration and less than a year before 9/11. Some Cole families complain that the Clinton administration never took action and that the Bush administration viewed the attack as one that didn't happen on its watch.

But this was not the first attempt on a U.S. Navy vessel in the Persian Gulf in 2000. Nine months before the Cole attack, another ship was in Al Qaeda's crosshairs.

On Jan. 3, 2000, Al Qaeda launched a nearly identical but unsuccessful attack on USS The Sullivans. Former senior Defense official Cully Stimson, now an analyst for the Heritage Foundation, says the operation was a disaster for Al Qaeda.

"They put so much explosives on the boat that it sank in the harbor," Stimson said. "If it wasn't so damn serious it would have been a Laurel and Hardy-type scenario."

Saudi national Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, who is still being held at Guantanamo, is now seen as the central link between the two plots, which both targeted the U.S. Navy off the coast of Yemen. Al-Nashiri was careful not to repeat the mistakes of the first plot, according to Stimson.

"They learned the weight to mass ratios with respect to the boat and its capacity. Essentially, that bombing was the dry run for the Cole bombing."

The 9/11 commission report is not silent on the Cole strike or that of The Sullivans. By December 2000, the CIA had developed a timeline linking the two events, but only after the Cole was already hit. Some Cole families question whether the ball was dropped -- whether critical intelligence was missed or misinterpreted.

A senior administration official told FOX News that President Obama has not ruled out the idea of a 9/11-style commission on the Cole attack, and it is now under review.

Despite hearings on Capitol Hill and three military investigations of the attack, some of the Cole families are still not satisfied, and no one has been held accountable for the killings.

Now with the closing of the military prison at Guantanamo, where the chief suspect is being held, old wounds have been reopened.

"Remember that our military people are not cannon fodder to just be thrown out there. They are there to protect us," said Clodfelter. "Our military people are treated badly. They deserve every bit of our respect. It's not being done."
 

Frank Probity

New Member
It seems that the anointed one has seen fit to deny justice to those killed on the U.S.S. Cole by delaying the ongoing trial of the ringleader. Obama is definitely in over his head. Even Biden says that the democrats will suffer from a backlash in 2010.
As the Commander who was at the helm of the Cole on that day says "Just delayed is justice denied."
And he is being shunned by one of the Cole mothers who actually voted for him and now wishes she hadn't.

Immediately after 9-11, President Bush stated all suspects detained were to be classified enemy combatants. Many considered suspects were detained for nothing more than than sending money to a combatant and in one alleged situation, a mother giving food to her son who fought with al Queda. The United States Supreme Court has already made three decisions against Bush administration policies of classifying all arrested suspects as enemy combatants and detaining them at Guantanamo. The Supreme Court has rendered decisions stating, detainees have the right to habeas corpus and says Guantanamo Bay cannot be a law free zone; that Military commissions lack the power to try detained suspects.
This is a matter of classification, illegal imprisonment and several other violations of law and the Constitution. SOmething the flag wavers and defenders of the COnstitution apparently overlook when President Bush walks all over that document that represents the foundation of America.

In response to jimpeel and Gonz, for all your fervor in denouncing this policy by President Obama, in the log run, it is in the best interest of the country. It means when these people are tried, it will be with the proper classification and in the proper court of law. It will be done the right way and not one facing the potential of numerous appeals that could, under the current classification of detainees, result in dismissal of charges at a later date.

President Bush was in such a hurry to arrest suspects, he violated civil rights, stepped on the Constitution and then sought methods to cover his own posterior as well as others under him, to protect them for knowingly breaking the law.

A note of sarcasm, but it is just one more mess President Obama has to clean up from the Bush administration.
 

MrBishop

Well-Known Member
I haven't committed any crimes; I haven't blown up any ships, buildings, or planes; and I wasn't Bin Laden's driver.
I meant 'your' as in the communal 'your' - "You Americans"

A world court examining the method that these people were rounded up, shipped overseas, interrogated, tortured, detained...

Calling witnesses to appear (GW Bush would make a great witness, Rumsfeld too), calling on American Military personnel to appear as witnesses.

All this in front of a world court, and a world audience..

Now THAT would be one hell of a show to see!
 

Gonz

molṑn labé
Staff member
It means when these people are tried, it will be with the proper classification and in the proper court of law. It will be done the right way and not one facing the potential of numerous appeals that could, under the current classification of detainees, result in dismissal of charges at a later date.

Since when do enemy military combatants, terrorists or their support network, taken from a battlefield or other military targetted area, not in the United States, have US Constitutional protection? Woul dthis also cover military personel already covered under the Geneva Convention?
 

jimpeel

Well-Known Member
I meant 'your' as in the communal 'your' - "You Americans"

A world court examining the method that these people were rounded up, shipped overseas, interrogated, tortured, detained...

Calling witnesses to appear (GW Bush would make a great witness, Rumsfeld too), calling on American Military personnel to appear as witnesses.

All this in front of a world court, and a world audience..

Now THAT would be one hell of a show to see!

That is one of the perils of a free and open society.
 

spike

New Member
Since when do enemy military combatants, terrorists or their support network, taken from a battlefield or other military targetted area, not in the United States, have US Constitutional protection?

Geezus Gonz, I keep giving you the answers and you keep putting the blinders on again. It has been ruled by the Supreme Court that the suspects can challenge their detention and have the right to habeas corpus.

This si so people that shouldn't be there have some recourse. Are you really so against the ideas of freedom and justice?
 

Frank Probity

New Member
Since when do enemy military combatants, terrorists or their support network, taken from a battlefield or other military targetted area, not in the United States, have US Constitutional protection? Would this also cover military personel already covered under the Geneva Convention?

Gonz, like President Bush, wants his cake and to eat it too but you can't have it both ways. Either the United States is adhering to the Geneva Conventions or they are not. In 2001, President Bush declared all detainees as enemy combatants. This is in violation of not only the Constitution, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the Convention Against Torture and Other Inhuman or Degrading treatment or Punishment and Title 18, U.S. Code, Section 2340A, but also, you guessed it, the Geneva Conventions. Also, of great importance are the decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court, in three out of three cases, against the policies of President Bush.
And yet, in the uncurbed enthusiasm to lambaste President Obama, the war chant today is, "justice delayed is justice denied". Just think, some of those blokes have been detained seven years without knowing what the charges against them are, how long they will be held or if they have the right to legal counsel. How bizarre is that.

OH WAIT !! I GET IT !!!
When Bush was president, it was okay to delay justice by keeping suspects in prison and authorize torture. BUT, now that Obama is president, continuing to delay their trial is violating their rights; as in justice delayed is justice denied. I Got it !!
 

Gonz

molṑn labé
Staff member
Either the United States is adhering to the Geneva Conventions or they are not.

We are. I've taken time to read the GC pertaining to who is, and is not, a lawful combatant. The people in Gitmo are not lawful combatants (soldiers) nor are they civilians. Since they chose to hide among the civilian population instead of wearing the uniform of their country wearing their insignia & weapons openly, they are unlawful enemy combatants, specifically denied standard POW treatment & the right to be exchanged, or released during military operations.

Since they are not US citizens (Padilla was an exception) and were not caught by civilian authority (police) on US soil, they are not protected by the US Constitution nor by habeas corpus.

The USMCJ disallows inhumane treatment. We can generally agree on what is inhumane but there is a grey area on what is not. Waterboarding, as an example, does not physically injure the subject. Is it torture?

The SCotUS said “we do not address whether the President has authority to detain”. So, they returned these combatants habeas, specifically denied them by the US Congress, to contest their imprisonment but not whether they were covered by the Constituion or the GC. Sounds like a populist ruling, not a legal one.

BUT, now that Obama is president, continuing to delay their trial is violating their rights; as in justice delayed is justice denied. I Got it !!

Missed the target completely.

President Bush said it is a war on terror & that we, the US, and he, the President, have authority to protect our interests & ourselves from further attacks. Given the modus operandi of the enemy, we must take offensive action to stop said attacks instead of awaiting a defensive position, which always comes too late.

President Obama said to stop the trials. Wouldn't those be the same trials that were ordered by the SCotUS? President Obama said we're going to close Gitmo. Does that mean he's going to house these combatants in your neighborhood, with it, bringing about legal ramifications? Perhaps he can house them in Mogadishu...I hear they're high on outstanding prisoner treatment list.

President Obama is, simply, in over his head & out of his league regarding non-POWs in a wartime setting. He'd be a great guy to have at parties though.
 
Top