Inside Khalid Sheikh Mohammed's Arraignment | Newsweek Voices - Terror Watch

Posted By: DXLVI @ 08/06/2008 1:48:40 AM

Comment: The defendants are nothing more than a bunch of crybabies (Allah would be proud). When I think of what they did to the inocent people at the WTC... I hope like hell they were tortured. I doubt it, but I can hope. If I give it any further thought tonight, their suffering would give me comfort. They hate us. Not because we're bad people, but because they are bad people. How many of you rasist have killed anybody because of the color of their skin? How many of you sexist have murdered somebody because their anatomy is different than yours? How many of you religious folk have killed someone from another church? These guys don't just hate diferent people they kill people because they think diferently than them. They don't just want you to be like them, they want you to be like them because they told you so. Do we as Americans (regardless of you politcal party) really need to use these jerks to be intraspective about us? Does anybody here choose these defendants as your, or better yet, your children's role models? These are all better questions than Olderwiser's questions. Sad dictator regime? You must be talking about the Bush administration. Please, consider this. They want to kill or convert as many Americans as they can. They want you to worship Allah just like they do. This will involve you learning to speak Aribic. They want to set-up an islamic dictorship to make sure you worship Allah just like they do. They hate President Bush and you hate President Bush (hack dictator is a pretty nasty thing to call our President). I hope you are as unhappy as you sound. Because you seem to have no problem at all with what the defendants did. Yet, you inpuned the reporters, the military and our President because of a question you think isn't answered in the story. I think they will get a fair trial. Will it be a perfect trial? I bet that's never happened for anybody. Was it an act of war or just a crime. Did they do it to make a buck? Was it vandalism? Or did they murder over 3000 people to achieve a geopolitiacal, ethnic, and religious goal? Sounds a lot like war to me. Either way, we aren't on trial, our country didn't deserve this and if they are guilty then I say execute them, cremate them, and dump their ashes down a toilette.

Posted By: weneed2openris @ 07/25/2008 7:32:10 AM

Comment: I wish that we would stop using the words radical and extremist. The quran is very clear on what muslims should do, they dont have to be radical or extremist...to follow the quran exactly means they must fight in the name of allah. That is not to say that all muslims are bad in anyway, most muslims do not follow the quran word for word, but their holy quran states, if they are called to fight, and dont, they are as bad as the infidels (unbelievers). So media, please stop using those words, extremist or radical, islam is NOT a religion of peace but of violence and the quran is saturated with instructions to kill all unbelievers. We better open our eyes before we are under sharia law.

Posted By: simplesimon33 @ 06/18/2008 11:54:29 PM

Comment: Martyrs in the making at Guantanamo by Timothy Rutten LA Times (on 6/8/08)
Khalid Sheikh Mohammed may have been called to answer about 9/11 attacks but real questions will never be asked at these mock trials like:
1. What was the connection between Pakistani ISI and Al Qaeda?
2. Who in Pakistani government was KSM in contact with?
3. Pakistani ISI director General Mahmoud Ahmed had instructed Omar Sheikh (kidnapper of Daniel Pearl) to wire $100,000 dollars to lead hijacker Mohammed Atta in his Florida bank account. Mohammed Atta used that money for flight training, living expenses and purchase of tickets on the day of the attacks. How many meetings did KSM had with General Mahmoud Ahmed before 9/11 attacks to finalize that arrangement?
4. General Mahmoud Ahmed as ISI Director only reported to Army Chief General Musharraf. Did KSM also met General Musharraf to finalize the day of 9/11 attacks and financing of the attacks? How did two Generals as Pakistani government leaders helped in executing 9/11 attacks?
5. How did Omar Sheikh who was released by India in 1998 hijacking of an Indian airliner to Taliban, wound up with KSM?
6. Why did kidnappers of Daniel Pearl demand the delivery of F-16 jet fighters by US to Pakistani government as a condition for release of Daniel Pearl? What connection did kidnappers of Daniel Pearl have with Pakistani government?
simple simon

Posted By: bikedude @ 06/09/2008 1:05:41 PM

Comment: Here's the issue with reporters like these two. They are all caught up in the process and ignore imporant issues. Just like Newsweek's coverage of politics. It's all about the horserace or the lapel pin. It's juvenile. In this hearing, the US military repeatedly cut off the sound feed to the reporters and other observing the proceeding. That is the actions of a hack dictator regime, not the USA. But I didn't find that out reading this story. These two "reporters" chose to skim over that key event, saying the military "blotted out" some the hearing. What does that mean? It's sad and disappointing and another example of how Newsweek and others are still in denial about their failure to truly report on Iraq and this president, rather than cheerlead and try not to upset those in power. After all, if the president gets mad, they won't be able to dress up and go to the big White House balls, will they?

Posted By: sgoldbarg @ 06/07/2008 11:15:54 AM

Comment: TommySix, I completely agree that calling our actions a Crusade is ridiculous and George Bush should never have said that. Also, if Osama bin Ladin was fighting to destroy America in the early '80s, why did the Reagan and Bush41 Administrations give al Qaeda weapons and training? Your explanation of how K. S. Mohammed and the others should be tried by a military rather than a civilian court did not fully clarify the matters for me, and your suggestion that Jihad comes from "early A.D. centuries of Holy War...against Christendom and Judeasm [sic]" puzzled me, too. You refer us to books; would you please, name one or two learned volumes devoted to these two topics that you could recommend.

Posted By: sgoldbarg @ 06/07/2008 10:16:41 AM

Comment: Olderbutwiser has seen through to an important truth. Civilians in civilian clothes killing civilians in civilian clothes cannot constitite an act of war. No government issued objections to our conduct or sent ultimatums. No government sent these murderers to accomplish a national policy. No government can surrender or force us to surrender. This is just a matter of a criminal gang getting it's jollies (to use the technical term) by murdering bystanders in numbers greater than ever seen before. While the quantity of victims was greater than ever before in our history, the quality is no different from the Wall Street bombing a century ago, the the Mad Bomber's outrages of the 1950s, or or the Unibomber murders of the 70s. They are just criminals like any other murderers.

Posted By: Karenn1 @ 06/07/2008 10:11:21 AM

Comment: This is a holdover for the election. To remine us Bush left N Y Toothless on his watch.What next drag out ben ladin frozen body for the election.I always thought he was dead along time ago,but was used like in the book 1984.Seven years as a supect,now arraigment where are we.Is the nation on prosacEven the nazi got a fast trial.Now were into making Martyr

Posted By: sgoldbarg @ 06/07/2008 10:01:55 AM

Comment: After his screwball outbursts, it should be obvious to even the most casual observers that K. S. Mohammed is criminally insane, both homicidal and suicidal, and that he belongs in an ultra maximum security facility built especially for such people.

Perhaps there is such a Federal Prison Hospital at Rochester, Minnesota.

Posted By: olderwiser @ 06/06/2008 9:00:40 AM

Comment: Come on, now, Mega, you're really George Bush, aren't you?

Posted By: olderwiser @ 06/06/2008 8:59:58 AM

Comment: I knew I'd get some help from the intelligentsia. Thanks, Mega. Now I understand.

Posted By: mega @ 06/05/2008 10:35:33 PM

Comment: as a court of criminals of war the international society must have a court of crimenals of religion who attack the civil live or destroying the meaning of human rights or to comminating the international peace or privent the devolpment of since and the rights of knwledge or characterizing between peoples according to its religion

Posted By: olderwiser @ 06/05/2008 8:15:07 PM

Comment: Well, I see that my chickens are roosting back there. Time for me to go to bed. I will check back here early in the morning for these answers. Thanks in advance. Send me a bill.

Posted By: olderwiser @ 06/05/2008 8:13:26 PM

Comment: The military really knows how to do it. Waterboard that sucker for five years and get his confession. Then give him his trial and hang him. All this constitutional hockey is just for TV Lawyer and District Attorney programs. Real life is different. No commercials, either.

Posted By: olderwiser @ 06/05/2008 8:10:30 PM

Comment: I think that we could solve a lot of crimes in our country like bank robberies, murders, thefts and the whole range of crimes if we would just waterboard the criminals. They are just coddled. How can you expect them to confess if you treat them like children? Sir, now come on, fess up. You know you did it. Wait, here comes your lunch. We'll be back later and talk some more. Think about confessing while you eat your filet mignon. You never get anywhere coddling them like that. Waterboard. Cheap and fast.

Posted By: olderwiser @ 06/05/2008 8:03:28 PM

Comment: Now, we are beginning to finally try people for whatever we are trying them for on a military base with the presumption that they are not criminals and therefore not subject to our constitution which governs trials, burt are instead under military jurisdiction, meaning that there has to be a war. Help me out here. Thanks.

Posted By: olderwiser @ 06/05/2008 8:01:00 PM

Comment: I have been bothered by these questions for a long time. So I thought. There are a lot of intelligent people on the blogs. I will just ask them. Thank you for your help. Send me a bill for tuition.

Posted By: olderwiser @ 06/05/2008 7:59:15 PM

Comment: Can you define victory in this war?

Posted By: olderwiser @ 06/05/2008 7:58:23 PM

Comment: Define victory in this war.

Posted By: olderwiser @ 06/05/2008 7:55:35 PM

Comment: If the war is against terror, on which continent is it located?

Posted By: olderwiser @ 06/05/2008 7:54:06 PM

Comment: If it is a war and we win, who signs the unconditional surrender document?

Posted By: olderwiser @ 06/05/2008 7:53:11 PM

Comment: Act of war. With which country?

Posted By: TommySix @ 06/05/2008 4:24:47 PM

Comment: I agree to a certain extent...but there can be no hypocracy on the US's part because the laws of our nation are intended for the protection and safety of the citizens and guests of our nation. Yes, they are criminals, but the laws of our nation clearly state that combatants or suspected combatants, that is to say non-citizens with hostile intent and/or action as it applies in the Hague Convention: Laws of 'Land, Sea, and Air Warfare,' will be tried as such by a Militarily run tribunal. Such as those conducted after numerous wartime engagements, reserved for those committing war crimes. They will be tried as having planned, resourced, and executing an act of war in a manner not intended to target a military asset, but to maim and destroy civilian targets so as to incite fear, terror, and civil unrest. so, yes, while they are criminals in the socio-political sense of the word, they are also war criminals. as to the "torture" of the suspects, i would not venture to say what they endured, because most reports of this are conjecture and rhetoric contrary to evidential debate.

Posted By: montecello316 @ 06/05/2008 4:23:10 PM

Comment: Put these terrorists in a small dark cell for the rest of their lives....don't make them martyr's!
Meanwhile, the people who think 9/11 was an inside job can work to prove their theory and free these poor souls.

Posted By: montecello316 @ 06/05/2008 4:20:01 PM

Comment: Put these people in a small dark cell somewhere.....do not kill them and make them martyrs!

Posted By: sjbrock80 @ 06/05/2008 4:16:23 PM

Comment: Hopefully Mohammed will spend the rest of his life in 23 hour lockdown at Florence Supermax. He needs 40 years of complete isolation to think about his life and ideals.

He does not deserve the honor of being a thought of as a martyr!!!!

Posted By: jmiller80 @ 06/05/2008 4:14:22 PM

Comment: Interesting to me that bongoman is against torture but is for putting the man "in a cell with someone who wants to engage in non-consensual sex." Both fall under what I would consider torture, and in Islam rape could be even worse because it stains the soul forever. At least waterboarding, which is hardly even used, gets information out of the terrorist.

Posted By: bongoman @ 06/05/2008 4:03:29 PM

Comment: These indviduals are criminals, and should be tried as such. The only way for the US to maintain the so called "moral highground" is to apply the law of our nation, affording him the same rights that other countries and societies, including his own, would deny anyone else. This way there is no hypocrasy in the treatment of these individuals.

Granted they should not have been tortured, that is wrong, but I doubt you will find many Americans shedding a tear fhor Khalid Sheik-Mohammed. Also, it would be wrong to 'martyr' him. Believe me, I have no problem with his death, but it should be a slow one. And if he happens to end up in a cell with someone who wants to engage in non-consensual sex, so be it. Let him pay for his crimes and suffer the indignity of knowing we have made him the poster boy for the vastly superior US justice system.

Posted By: TommySix @ 06/05/2008 3:53:44 PM

Comment: oh, and they hate us anyway. you ever been to an Arab nation? Thier propoganda machine is staggering. Not to mention that the "crusade" has actually been going on for decades against America. every time youve heard or read the word Jihad, it is derived from actual attempts (read a few books, theyre easy to find) by enemies of this country who model thier fight after the early A.D. centuries of holy war fought by the "holy warriors" against Christendom and Judeasm. Not that these 3 faiths have been entirely innocent, but to say we are actually embracing or even, in theory, practicing a crusade at this point is ludicrous. Osama (Usama) himself declared war on us in the early 80's declaring Jihad on this nation. It just took us 20 years to actually fight back.

Posted By: melissac @ 06/05/2008 3:48:35 PM

Comment: Seriously? An inside job? Wow-

Posted By: TommySix @ 06/05/2008 3:44:50 PM

Comment: Carlmn, it was a communications issue, and youre precious conspiracy laden attempt at sounding like a decent human being who actually gives a S*&# is pathetic. MWSALA is absolutely correct...thier actions make them combatants, not criminals, though they may as well be now, as this tribunal has gone public. The assumptions that you are working on for your "inside job" theory are that 1) agencies inside the government have magic buttons to cruise control everything that is American, and 2) that had the planes not been flying a training mission that day, they would have had any success whatsoever of finding them on blind aviation technique. the people flying them were smart enough to turn off the locators, which meant air traffic control would only be able to pick them up on radar. do you know how terribly difficult that would be with the airways as crowded as they are at any given time? apparently, your "careful thought" is limited to beleiving what some sensationalist whack-tard wrote in some blog. it makes me sick to my stomach to see so many people so naive as to defend the perps of these attacks.

Posted By: Carlmn @ 06/05/2008 3:27:53 PM

Comment: This is a Joke and sham. If they were guilty, we would've had the trial in a real court years ago. Torture and "confessions" with no corroborating evidence, except other torture induced "confessions" is not Evidence. 9/11 was an inside job, the real evidence is the fact that the airforce was told to stand down on 9/11. Any other time a plane goes off course or does not respond to air traffic control the air force is called in within 10 minutes(many documented instances of this). Why were these planes flying around for over 1 hour without the airforce putting planes in the air? Start to think and stop being caught up in HATE. HATE WILL ONLY BREED HATE. Careful consideration of FACTS will always lead you in the right direction.

Posted By: Carlmn @ 06/05/2008 3:21:25 PM

Comment: This is a sham trial. After being tortured for years, if they tell you, "you are a terrorist", you will believe you are a terrorist. The reason that his none of his confessions of future attacks did not come true is because he knows nothing. Just another arab that hates neocons (with reasons). Now we've given them more reasons to hate us. HATE BREEDS HATE and Bush himself admitted the war was a "crusade against Islam".

Posted By: mwsala @ 06/05/2008 3:18:11 PM

Comment: First sentence of the third paragraph declares the 9/11 attacks as a mere "crime?" 9/11 was no criminal act; it was an act of war, an attack on American soil that killed thousands. KSM and his terrorist cohorts are combatants, not criminals. Using the word crime is, it seems, a deliberate attempt to editorialize in a news article and to declare that Newsweek, or at least the writers, do not approve of military tribunals.

Posted By: CUBIRISH @ 06/05/2008 3:14:56 PM

Comment: IF KHALID MOHAMMED WANT TO DIE, PLEASE DON'T DO IT. HE CAN NOT BE A MARTIR,
LET HIM IN A CELL THE REST OF HIS LIFE AND THE NEXT, IF HE HAS OTHER LIFES
HE IS A TERRORIST , AND HE SHOULD PAID FOR.

Posted By: jdtseattlewa @ 06/05/2008 2:21:41 PM

Comment: We have seen this coming for a while. Carry on.

Posted By: guest @ 06/05/2008 2:17:38 PM

Comment: Ridiculous.

Top Story

Latest News

Disorder in the Court

Discuss