View Full Version : terrorists beware
Tribesman
08-06-2008, 16:52
At last a strong message has been sent , the free world strikes back .
After years of looking like idiots and throwing the rule of law out the window we finally have a result .
They managed to convict a terrorist at the heart of the attacks against the west:birthday2:
Well they managed in strange circumstances to convict on some charges a bloke who drove a car in Afghanistan .
InsaneApache
08-06-2008, 17:03
You know. I swear I saw Bin-Liner driving a taxi in Halifax. True.:embarassed:
Evil_Maniac From Mars
08-06-2008, 17:19
Just so everyone knows exactly (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7545484.stm) what's going on.
LittleGrizzly
08-06-2008, 17:28
ahh thanks, was completely in the dark here...
Well i know in my terrorist organisation i would have one of the top guys driving, its not something you can have any regular guy doing, hatred of the US and terrorist training is a must.... of course he must have been a terrorist, what self respecting afghani would work for a bad guy for £99 a month unless he was a terrorist..... im sure theres plenty of other jobs he could done for such a wage.... like.... errm... warlord.... or..... high ranking goverment official, but he obviously choose to ignore such obvious opportunitys so he could destroy the west by driving osama round...
The defence said the case was "guilt by association".
ohh well thats ok then, guilt by association... lets get the sobs that trained aq up next
HoreTore
08-06-2008, 18:40
So....
A taxi driver who picks up and drives a criminal(which he is bound to do by law, btw) is now a criminal too?
Good lord. :wall:
EDIT: This thing reminds me of "The enemy within" by Jan Guillou, btw.
Innocentius
08-06-2008, 20:32
Breaking news indeed. Progress!
EDIT: This thing reminds me of "The enemy within" by Jan Guillou, btw.
You mean you have to put up with his books in Norway as well? It's spreading like a cancer.
PanzerJaeger
08-06-2008, 20:43
So....
A taxi driver who picks up and drives a criminal(which he is bound to do by law, btw) is now a criminal too?
Good lord. :wall:
EDIT: This thing reminds me of "The enemy within" by Jan Guillou, btw.
Thats not exactly the situation in this case.
HoreTore
08-06-2008, 20:44
Thats not exactly the situation in this case.
Why not? All he was doing was driving a bad guy around... So why shouldn't another guy who is driving a different bad guy around be jailed?
Thats not exactly the situation in this case.
Actually it is. He was payed 200$ a month to drive Bin Laden around, this was a lot of money for someone like him. There is no proof he was commited to Islamic terrorism, nor any proof he comitted acts of violence, he was simply guilty by association. They even went as far as saying he was a conspirator behind the 9/11 attacks.
PanzerJaeger
08-06-2008, 20:53
He was not "legally bound" to drive a terrorist around, so your logical leap didn't quite make it. :trytofly:
This isn't really anything new. If you're employed by a criminal, you may be subject to litigation. There are lessons to be learned here somewhere....
Kralizec
08-06-2008, 20:54
They even went as far as saying he was a conspirator behind the 9/11 attacks.
He wasn't convicted on that charge.
He was not "legally bound" to drive a terrorist around, so your logical leap didn't quite make it. :trytofly:
This isn't really anything new. If you're employed by a criminal, you may be subject to litigation. There are lessons to be learned here somewhere....
No he was not, but he was being payed a hefty sum to just drive around.
Do you honestly think life is a fair sentence for him?
LittleGrizzly
08-06-2008, 20:57
He was payed 200$ a month to drive Bin Laden around, this was a lot of money for someone like him.
Exactly my point! Almost any afghani would have liked that job, even extreme idealogical differences wouldn't stop most people for that amount of money, and to just drive him around... if i was in a county as poor as afghanastan and i was offered that kind of money i drive almost anyone round....
Edit: is it just because he was his driver or was there other stuff on him ?
He wasn't convicted on that charge.
But he was charged with it. I think that's a large leap to accuse a car driver of being a conspirator behind 9/11.
PanzerJaeger
08-06-2008, 21:02
No he was not, but he was being payed a hefty sum to just drive around.
Do you honestly think life is a fair sentence for him?
Sets a good example. Don't deal with terrorists, no matter how much money they're throwing around.
And don't worry, this will be knocked down on appeal.
LittleGrizzly
08-06-2008, 21:02
If Blair or Bush where ever charged with war crimes could we charge thier drivers to ?
what of milosovic's driver or saddams driver ? have they been charged for thier heinous crime of being the driver to a criminal ?
And most importantly i guess is there any evidence other than the fact he was Osama's driver?
Sets a good example. Don't deal with terrorists, no matter how much money they're throwing around.
And don't worry, this will be knocked down on appeal.
Sets a good example? The man is a car driver, there is no evidence supporting he engaged in any terrorist activity, he was being payed to drive, not bomb Kabul.
I hope this will be knocked down on appeal, that's setting a good example
PanzerJaeger
08-06-2008, 21:12
If Bin Laden offered you $1 Million a week to drive for him, would you? Or would you have some moral qualms?
And yes Griz, it's been done before. Many low level, ancillary Germans were charged with all sorts of crimes after WW2. It just depends on how vengeful your captors are, and Americans are still pretty vengeful for knocking down our buildings. Thats the risk Mr. Hamden took for $200 a week.
yesdachi
08-06-2008, 21:18
FYI (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26055301)
He was convicted of five counts of providing material support for terrorism, specifically that his personal services to al-Qaida included driving and acting as a bodyguard for a man he knew to be the leader of an international terrorist organization.
If Bin Laden offered you $1 Million a week to drive for him, would you? Or would you have some moral qualms?
And yes Griz, it's been done before. Many low level, ancillary Germans were charged with all sorts of crimes after WW2. It just depends on how vengeful your captors are, and Americans are still pretty vengeful for knocking down our buildings. Thats the risk Mr. Hamden took for $200 a week.
If Bin Laden offered me 1$ million a week and I was living in a poor country, with nothing good ahead for me, I would take it. Vengeance clouds logic. This is in no way logical to give a driver life imprisonment because he got good money for driving Osama around.
Should the average German soldier have been charged for the Holocaust?
Should we bring America to war crime trials because we have funded terrorists, dictators and insurgents?
LittleGrizzly
08-06-2008, 21:27
It just depends on how vengeful your captors are, and Americans are still pretty vengeful for knocking down our buildings.
Yeah france were pretty vengeful after world war 1, i believe it was TSM who called them stupid and immature for thier petty vengefulness, it was stupid and immature but kind of an understandable anger, this applies here also....
If Bin Laden offered you $1 Million a week to drive for him, would you? Or would you have some moral qualms?
If i was an Afghani (presumably at least fairly poor, most probably very poor) family to feed, 9-11 hasn't happened yet, sure i would, i may have some moral qualms but people and countries all over the world are happy to recieve dirty money, the west was perfectly happy to supply saddam even though he was obviously a tryanical dictator and to this day were happy to take money, oil or whatever we need off bad guys, so maybe all the adminstrations involved should recieve thier life sentences...
Another thing is how much could this guy have known about osama, there are plenty of goverments and people who happily deal with and work for guys they know do terrible things, but remember this guy was his driver pre 9/11 i knew nothing of osama pre 9/11 i doubt many ordinary westerners did, this is in the west where we can read and write and have a huge variety of sources to get information from, this guy most likely a poverty stricken afghani before driving for osama probably can't read or write, probably knew very little of what osama did, and as a paid driver was not there to question his boss but to get him from A to B, this is all very disturbing to me....
Many low level, ancillary Germans were charged with all sorts of crimes after WW2.
I would not have supported some low level german who drove hitler around being given a life sentence without more evidence than he was his driver, that would just be cruel and wrong then, and it is cruel and wrong now...
Should we bring America to war crime trials because we have funded terrorists, dictators and insurgents?
When Britian was still suffering IRA bombing campaigns america was happily funding thier terrorists around the world, would it be fair if all drivers who drove presidents that supported terrorists be given life sentences ?
Im sure there are plenty of vengeful people left in britian from people they killed and buildings they blew up, so that makes it ok right ?
ohh sure it was a well paid job but you'll think twice before being a driver for someone who works with terrorists again.... a message must be sent out
would you be ok with that panzer ?
[B]If i was an Afghani (presumably at least fairly poor, most probably very poor) family to feed, 9-11 hasn't happened yet, sure i would, i may have some moral qualms but people and countries all over the world are happy to recieve dirty money, the west was perfectly happy to supply saddam even though he was obviously a tryanical dictator and to this day were happy to take money, oil or whatever we need off bad guys, so maybe all the adminstrations involved should recieve thier life sentences...
Another thing is how much could this guy have known about osama, there are plenty of goverments and people who happily deal with and work for guys they know do terrible things, but remember this guy was his driver pre 9/11 i knew nothing of osama pre 9/11 i doubt many ordinary westerners did, this is in the west where we can read and write and have a huge variety of sources to get information from, this guy most likely a poverty stricken afghani before driving for osama probably can't read or write, probably knew very little of what osama did, and as a paid driver was not there to question his boss but to get him from A to B, this is all very disturbing to me....
Point of order, since this has been mentioned several times in the thread. The driver is not an Afghan, he is Yemeni. Like most of AQ and the Talies, he is Arabic, not indigenous. Not saying that makes him guilty or innocent of the charges, but he likely did know the company he kept.
Was he blind? Didn't he know what is doing Bin Laden? I remind you that Osama did not start 9th Sept.... If criminal hire you to help him when commiting crimes - you are criminal too.
Was he blind? Didn't he know what is doing Bin Laden? I remind you that Osama did not start 9th Sept.... If criminal hire you to help him when commiting crimes - you are criminal too.
I'm afraid it's not as black and white as that.
Louis VI the Fat
08-06-2008, 22:12
Was he blind? Well, being Osama's driver, one would expect not. ~;p
I remind you that Osama did not start 9th Sept Excuse me, but 9/11 occurred on the 9th of November. :book:
PanzerJaeger
08-06-2008, 22:14
Fish & Griz -
A) I'm surprised that both of you would be so willing to work for a terrorist, financial difficulties or not. Apart from the leering eye of the ever watchful Predator Drone, one must make some very objectionable moral compromises to justify working for such a man. I'm not sure your assumptions about the man's financial status or motives are correct, either.
B) Moral equivalencies seldom make good arguments. Trying to compare working for the vast expanse that is the US Federal Government to personally driving around a man whose immediate goals, and the goals of his organization, consisted entirely of plotting and executing terrorist attacks against civilians just doesn't work.
This man made several unfortunate choices that led him to be made into an example. They were his choices to make, though.
Nothing really new here. A bodyguard/driver of a vile and evil man has been forced to pay for the crimes of the man he chose to protect.
You are judged by the friends and acquiantances you choose to associate yourself with. Their acts and their character reflect on your own. Choose your friends/bosses wisely, it's an old addage but should never be forgotten.
Is life a fair sentence? Hell, he even said he was in it for the money.
Sarmatian
08-06-2008, 23:16
Nothing really new here. A bodyguard/driver of a vile and evil man has been forced to pay for the crimes of the man he chose to protect.
You are judged by the friends and acquiantances you choose to associate yourself with. Their acts and their character reflect on your own. Choose your friends/bosses wisely, it's an old addage but should never be forgotten.
So a good portion of US administration should go to jail for giving weapons to Saddam? Guilty by association. If I've learned something from Tribesy here, that's when to say "bollox!"...
In its first response, the White House said Hamdan had received a "fair trial".
So, a guy who worked for enemy n° 1 of the US gets sentenced by a US court and they expect the international community to believe that this was a "fair trial"?
Is the White House trying to tell me that there isn't even the slightest air of this court being biased?
Did they ever hear about in propria causa nemo iudex (no person can judge a case in which he or she is a party)?
They could at least have had the decency to let him be judged by an international court, like the International Criminal Court (but therefore, the US should ratify its founding treaty...). Than I might have been willing to believe that the guy was been given a fair trial.
You know, with the time spent with this trial, the first for Gitmo, we could've spent it on someone who, you know, actually killed people.
PanzerJaeger
08-06-2008, 23:32
So, a guy who worked for enemy n° 1 of the US gets sentenced by a US court and they expect the international community to believe that this was a "fair trial"?
Is the White House trying to tell me that there isn't even the slightest air of this court being biased?
Did they ever hear about in propria causa nemo iudex (no person can judge a case in which he or she is a party)?
They could at least have had the decency to let him be judged by an international court, like the International Criminal Court (but therefore, the US should ratify its founding treaty...). Than I might have been willing to believe that the guy was been given a fair trial.
I sooo want to comment on that but I fear it would drag the thread towards the monestary.
So a good portion of US administration should go to jail for giving weapons to Saddam? Guilty by association. If I've learned something from Tribesy here, that's when to say "bollox!"...
Comparing cold relations during proxy wars to a mad man's driver/bodyguard? Sorry, but that's a leap. You are completely disregarding prime motives during the cold war. The US administration was also removed by several levels of assiociation to what was going on compared to this man who was directly paid and worked directly for bin laden.
But don't let me interrupt here. Please let me hear how this man, a driver for a sociopathic terrorist, is compareable to US relations during the cold war.
Is life a fair sentence? Hell, he even said he was in it for the money.
So he was in it for the money? So that makes working for a terrorist organization ok? Blood money is a double edged sword, and this man just got stabbed by it. He has none of my sympathy, nor any of my concern. Sorry you gambled with your life and you got cuaght.
Crazed Rabbit
08-06-2008, 23:58
Lefties when a man's house is seized because he didn't have a license plate on his van in his driveway: It's the law and it's fair.
Lefties when bin Laden's Yemeni driver/bodyguard in Afghanistan (ie the crap about being a poor Afghan with a hungry family means nothing) is sentenced to jail: Oh noes! How unfair!
:no:
CR
Well, I think if he knew he was driving a wanted terrorist around then he had to see such a sentence coming if caught and has only himself to blame, if being the lookout for some rapist soldiers is wrong then being the driver of a wanted terrorist is just as wrong because it is supportive of the crimes commited by the "worse" ciminals.
I have a problem with the possible sentence he is facing, and that's life imprisonment. I also have a problem with the fact they did charge him (but did not convict him) with conspiracy in the 9/11 attacks. Material aid to terrorists is supplying money, RPG's, AK-47's, not driving Osama around. I believe he did it for the money.
Tribesman
08-07-2008, 01:55
The only problem I have with this is that its taken so long and all they have managed so far is to convict a nobody , though I have heard they may be close to convicting both his chef and manicurist but it appears his tailor may have cut a deal .
Oh and the other problem which is more to do with the whole "justice" of this "legal" framework , the statement that even if aquitted of all charges he could still have been held in prison indefinately.
Louis VI the Fat
08-07-2008, 01:56
Oh, I'll be obscure and throw in a quote from an Islamic Networking Site (http://talk.islamicnetwork.com/showthread.php?t=12047)
Brother from Nigeria:
I am a 28 year old bother upon the qeedah of ahlul sunna wal jamaah.People describe me as easygoing,friendly and understanding.My intrests are Islam,reading,fiqh,Jihad and fighting i the cause of Allah, history, martialarts, mountains,computers,gadgets,internet,horse back riding,Driving fast bikes,current affairs, brainstorming, science,traveling,financial/investing,camping,walking,
jogging,and hiking and spending quality time with my mum ,my family and truest friends.
I will be living in early in 2007 to the arabian penuisala.I have alawys had a loveaffair with Horse
I am searching for a muslimah that has the right aqeedah,a good heart especially to her muslim brethren,good adab,easygoing,understanding,loves kids,compassionte,and a sweet romantic woman as well.
She should not be afraid of the blame of the blamers.Basically a devout muslimah.
Jazakumullahu khairun.
Why is it relevant? Because I think this is basically the kind of guy that was convincted in our trial. A Jihadist, sure. An adventurer. A small time Islamist with a 56k internet, a Koran, and a grudge.
But seven years, two wars, torture camps*, and trillions of dollars - and this is what the US administration has to show for it's effort? A second rate adventurer?
:shame:
* Not prisons. Not detention camps. Torture camps.
The White House said the trial was fair and looked forward to more tribunals. If I were the White House I'd close Gitmo if only to save me from further embarrasment like this.
HoreTore
08-07-2008, 02:50
He was not "legally bound" to drive a terrorist around, so your logical leap didn't quite make it. :trytofly:
This isn't really anything new. If you're employed by a criminal, you may be subject to litigation. There are lessons to be learned here somewhere....
Right. I assume the Enron executives had personal drivers too. It's your opinion that they should be sentenced too, right?
PanzerJaeger
08-07-2008, 04:16
I will be living in early in 2007 to the arabian penuisala.I have alawys had a loveaffair with Horse
You left out some bolding. :laugh4:
Seriously though, I agree with you*. This guy was a low level nobody. That doesn't mean that he doesn't deserve what he got.
*Except on the torture camps..
But seven years, two wars, torture camps*, and trillions of dollars - and this is what the US administration has to show for it's effort? A second rate adventurer?
To our credit, we have eliminated much of Al Q outright. They can't seem to keep a PR guy more than a few months..
Also, I believe this was essentially a trial run to set precedents and such. More cases will be forthcoming.
Right. I assume the Enron executives had personal drivers too. It's your opinion that they should be sentenced too, right?
You're comparing Enron executives to Osama bin Laden? Really? :inquisitive:
In any event, if one of their drivers could be proven to have known that the execs were planning on cheating the shareholders and did nothing, he may be liable on some level.
LittleGrizzly
08-07-2008, 04:28
Fish & Griz -
A) I'm surprised that both of you would be so willing to work for a terrorist, financial difficulties or not. Apart from the leering eye of the ever watchful Predator Drone, one must make some very objectionable moral compromises to justify working for such a man. I'm not sure your assumptions about the man's financial status or motives are correct, either.
Im not sure of the state of the yemeni economy or its average citizens but seen as $99 a month is a damn good wage outside of any first world country i would assume it's still a hell of a lot of money, the moral objections are not really much more than working with any goverment that works with saddam type dictators at the moment, hell my goverment has plenty of friends in dark places who would happily kill far more than 3,000 of thier own people and plenty of drivers who take them around whilst making these decisions, i don't see american lives as any more important than other nationalitys lives and i don't see terrorism as any worse than a dictator using goverment power to kill his own. Sinn Fein has had driver(s) in the past, we don't seem to have gone after them..... If i was Irish and in need of a job and offered well above usual wages to be sinn fien's driver, i would do it, i imagine the situation would seem very similar to a middle easterner working for Osama pre 9/11
It may be morally questionable but so is a huge amount of things western goverments are involved in, but that is ok as were the good guys right ? and as we have declared them as the bad guys any punishments we hand down are just...
B) Moral equivalencies seldom make good arguments. Trying to compare working for the vast expanse that is the US Federal Government to personally driving around a man whose immediate goals, and the goals of his organization, consisted entirely of plotting and executing terrorist attacks against civilians just doesn't work.
I fail to see why the moral equivelance isn't valid here, the only difference i see is that AQ have been declared bad guys by america, the nasty people we still work with have yet to be declared bad guys, so this man has been charged because he works for someone america declared a bad guy, much worse people are allowed of scott free or worse have goods and money exchanged as they are not declared bad guys, but easily visible by everyone else as bad guys... besides there is the example of terrorist groups in Ireland, thier drivers haven't been handed down life sentences, or forced to suffer years of torture in some camp, the only difference i see is one involves irish citizens and uk goverment, other one involves middle eastern citizens and american goverment...
This man made several unfortunate choices that led him to be made into an example. They were his choices to make, though.
I think just being in Gauntanamo for a few years is more than enough torture for any crime he did commit
ICantSpellDawg
08-07-2008, 04:39
[B]
I think just being in Gauntanamo for a few years is more than enough torture for any crime he did commit
Torture? Any crime?
LittleGrizzly
08-07-2008, 04:43
Torture?
You know... waterboarding and the like.... or enhanced interigation as i believe your administration likes to call it... pretty words make it sound so much better....
Any crime?
You know... like driving....
maybe i should clarify the any crime one, i don't think anyone should be tortured, whether they deseve it or not is questionable but i think usually not....
Assuming he was directly involved in planning and actually helped (by more than driving) the attacks of 9/11 he would probably deserve his life sentence (depending on extent of involvment of course)
The way i see it the guy caught a lucky break and got a very well paid job but because it happened to be for the wrong bad guy he gets tortured for years and a life sentence at the end of the torture, i doubt he thought any more on it than Bush's driver wondering how many iraqis have died because of his war, i see both men as morally questionable Osama is obviously the worse guy but bush has caused far more deaths.... so why should osamas driver be any more accountable than bush's...
ICantSpellDawg
08-07-2008, 04:48
Torture?
You know... waterboarding and the like.... or enhanced interigation as i believe your administration likes to call it... pretty words make it sound so much better....
Any crime?
You know... like driving....
Did he claim to have been water boarded? I've read that he was "sexually humiliated" by females, but I can't find out what that actually means. Solitary confinement and sleep deprivation? Boo-Hoo. He knowingly aided a genocidal terrorist in exchange for money. Should he have expected free lollipops?
LittleGrizzly
08-07-2008, 04:53
Did he claim to have been water boarded?
I don't know, i would assume any methods available to enhance (such a pretty word) the interigation would be used, even if not waterboarding im fairly sure they would have used some of thier less savoury methods on him....
ICantSpellDawg
08-07-2008, 04:54
Did he claim to have been water boarded?
I don't know, i would assume any methods available to enhance (such a pretty word) the interigation would be used, even if not waterboarding im fairly sure they would have used some of thier less savoury methods on him....
So you are assuming; and in your assumptions you are maintaining that he has already received enough punishment. Cool.
I just wanted to make sure that I understood what you were doing.
LittleGrizzly
08-07-2008, 05:06
So you are assuming; and in your assumptions you are maintaining that he has already received enough punishment. Cool.
I just wanted to make sure that I understood what you were doing.
If saddam were to have someone locked in a prison which is infamous for him torturing people in how big a leap of logic would it be to assume that the prisnor is being tortured ?
Gauntanamo is infamous throughout the world and its torture methods well known and defended by the administration, and put in place to deal with terrorists, which is exactly what they think this guy is, i would also assume an egg dropped from any great hieght would break upon contact with the floor and im assuming the world won't end tommorow....
The assumption i think you could however question is the one of his limited involvment, with a lack of other evidence, available to us here at the .org, i have been unable to decide whether the american goverment has other evidence or whether this is done soley because he was Osama's driver, i have decided to approach the issue as if it was done soley because he drove for Osama this is the bigger assumption, but has been made based on a lack of evidence saying otherwise....
Out of interest i remember some american company sent over people to try and do a deal with the Taliban to build a pipeline through afghanastan, as it happens the deal didn't work outbut if it had would these guys be hauled into gauntanamo through the guilt by association train of thought ?
or as rich non-muslim americans would they be given the benefit of the doubt ?
Craterus
08-07-2008, 05:14
If it helps, I'd be any "sociopath's" driver if the price was right. And the right price is lower than you think. ~:)
Evil_Maniac From Mars
08-07-2008, 05:18
The whole "what would I do" question and debate is irrelevant. I would consider being a driver for someone who offered me a few million (I value my life more though), but that doesn't make it right.
LittleGrizzly
08-07-2008, 05:23
If it helps, I'd be any "sociopath's" driver if the price was right. And the right price is lower than you think.
Thats what i thought when panzer mention $1,000,000. the $99 a month sounded pretty sweet to me, us unemployed can't afford to be picky ya know...
Edit: I think the whole what would i do has some bearing on the subject, as he could be any guy who just happened to see a very well paid oppurtunity come up and ignored the fact it was for a less than wholesome character, it should at the very least be taken into account when sentencing, that the nicest guy in the world could have wandered into that job....
Craterus
08-07-2008, 05:28
What was the guy supposed to do? Quit the job? Drive him off a cliff? I think not turning up would probably have been a bad idea.
Personally, I think the US is punishing this guy for their lack of any real progress in finding Bin Laden so they've taken the next best thing and slapped it with a punitive and completely unjustified sentence to make it look like they're actually achieving something in their war on terror.
Wasn't this the guy that was transporting surface to air missiles in his car when he was caught at a checkpoint? Excuse me if I don't buy the "He was just an innocent victim" excuse.
Did he claim to have been water boarded? I've read that he was "sexually humiliated" by females, but I can't find out what that actually means. Solitary confinement and sleep deprivation? Boo-Hoo. He knowingly aided a genocidal terrorist in exchange for money. Should he have expected free lollipops?Right, I've seen no evidence nor even the accusation that he was waterboarded or anything of the like. And, had he been, any confessions gained would've been inadmissible- the judge in the case threw out several statements made by Hamdan that he determined to be coerced.
I have a problem with the possible sentence he is facing, and that's life imprisonment. I also have a problem with the fact they did charge him (but did not convict him) with conspiracy in the 9/11 attacks. Material aid to terrorists is supplying money, RPG's, AK-47's, not driving Osama around. I believe he did it for the money.To the first part, I don't believe he's likely to see a life sentence- I'd bet more like 20 years.... which I guess in some countries is considered a life sentence, but no by US standards. To the second part, he did provide material support and was convicted for it- see my opening statement.
LittleGrizzly
08-07-2008, 06:02
Wasn't this the guy that was transporting surface to air missiles in his car when he was caught at a checkpoint?
Right now this is something, transporting such missles for aq is clearly a crime that should be punished
Right, I've seen no evidence nor even the accusation that he was waterboarded or anything of the like.
When you take someone to a camp where the american goverment have pushed to be allowed enhanced interigation, what do you expect people to think, the american goverment made this mess for themselves by allowing such methods and calling them legal, i would assume anyone taking to one of saddam torture dungeons was tortured like any sensible person, i would also assume anyone taken to an american torture camp was tortured... like any sensible person...
the judge in the case threw out several statements made by Hamdan that he determined to be coerced.
So the judge also believes enhanced methods were used ? or were they coerced through legal means, people seem to be getting annoyed with all my assumptions so ill wait for an answer before i go off on a rant here...
To the first part, I don't believe he's likely to see a life sentence- I'd bet more like 20 years.... which I guess in some countries is considered a life sentence, but no by US standards.
It is hard to know what is meant by life sentence, for the rest of his life did seem too much (before the info about the missles which ill assume is correct....)
When you take someone to a camp where the american goverment have pushed to be allowed enhanced interigation, what do you expect people to think, the american goverment made this mess for themselves by allowing such methods and calling them legal, i would assume anyone taking to one of saddam torture dungeons was tortured like any sensible person, i would also assume anyone taken to an american torture camp was tortured... like any sensible person...
This is the problem really, with the US administration's relaxed attitude to torture it has forever destroyed the legitimacy of its war on terror. I can no more accept at face value the assurances that torture was not used than I can accept Mugabe's assurances that his elections are fair.
That said, it seems pretty clear the guy was a member of Al Qaeda. And let's be clear, if I was to agree to do work for a criminal organisation for no better reason than because it was well payed I should expect to go to prison if caught. The problem is simply that it's hard to see how the trial can be fair.
sleep deprivation? Boo-Hoo.
Let's be quite clear about this: Sleep deprivation is torture, and is defined as such under international law. If you do it long enough, it will cause psychological damage and eventually death.
Just a random thought:
Let's assume there's indisputable proof that the US committed war crimes in a recent past (for the sake of convenience: e.g. torture).
Will Mister Bush's driver also be sentenced to life time imprisonment?
:inquisitive: :shame:
But let's stick to the topic at hand and what's most relevant for the international community (the Org is in fact a mini-international community).
Lefties when a man's house is seized because he didn't have a license plate on his van in his driveway: It's the law and it's fair.
Lefties when bin Laden's Yemeni driver/bodyguard in Afghanistan (ie the crap about being a poor Afghan with a hungry family means nothing) is sentenced to jail: Oh noes! How unfair!
You're comparing apples with oranges...
In the first case the culprit was a US citizen living in the US and thus falling under US law.
In this case, we're talking about war crimes in an international conflict.
a) The court judging over this man should have been an international court (like the International Criminal Court, which founding treaty the US administration still hasn't ratified); b) the law applicable in this case should have been international law and international law only, not US law.
The US is involved as a party in this dispute and shouldn't be the judge in nor make the rules for this lawsuit (nemo iudex in propria causa, a long since established principle in law).
If an international court applying international legislation in this case would sentence the man to life time imprisonment, than, I, as an unbiased, non-US citizen and thus representative for the international community, would have far less difficulties to accept this judgement.
That's all :shrug:
Oh, and the whole Left/Right thingy found it's origins in 1791. I don't like being labelled, but if you insist on putting a (somewhat anachronistic) label on me, I'd prefer to be called caveman instead of "lefty" ~;p
HoreTore
08-07-2008, 11:56
You're comparing Enron executives to Osama bin Laden? Really? :inquisitive:
In any event, if one of their drivers could be proven to have known that the execs were planning on cheating the shareholders and did nothing, he may be liable on some level.
They're both criminals aren't they?
But proven to know something? Was OBL's driver proven to know anything? You really think 9/11 was told to everyone who wanted to know about it? And anyway, what on earth could he have done if he found out something? That is, what could he have done without ending up with a bullet in the head within the hour...
HoreTore
08-07-2008, 11:58
Did he claim to have been water boarded? I've read that he was "sexually humiliated" by females, but I can't find out what that actually means. Solitary confinement and sleep deprivation? Boo-Hoo. He knowingly aided a genocidal terrorist in exchange for money. Should he have expected free lollipops?
Right. If this is the attitude of the conservatives in general, I fear for the world.
Tribesman
08-07-2008, 12:36
Also, I believe this was essentially a trial run to set precedents and such.
Yes and did you notice one precedent that was set ?
So what are they now going to do with that Canadin who they were charging with murder ?
The judge said killing an American soldier in Afghanistan is not murder so does that mean after all those years in detention the Canadian walks free ?
Oh silly me I forgot , not bringing charges or not securing a conviction on charges doesn't mean that people do not remain in custody indefinately .
Yay justice .
This is wrong. A driver is just a driver no matter who he drives around.
Just a random thought:
Let's assume there's indisputable proof that the US committed war crimes in a recent past (for the sake of convenience: e.g. torture).
Will Mister Bush's driver also be sentenced to life time imprisonment?
:inquisitive: :shame:
If the driver knew that Bush was directly responsible for those war crimes and was in it for the money, yes, otherwise:
You're comparing apples with oranges...
If the driver knew that Bush was directly responsible for those war crimes and was in it for the money, yes, otherwise:
And if he would be sentenced by an Afghan court, you would assume that he had a fair trial?
ICantSpellDawg
08-07-2008, 16:08
Right. If this is the attitude of the conservatives in general, I fear for the world.
Horetore, give me a break. I've said that he wasn't waterboarded, that people are using vague terms to describe what happened to him. Sexual humiliation? Is that where he is stripped down and genitally electrocuted with a stick up his arse, or is it where a pretty woman comes in, tempts hims with sex and then puts on the pressure?
The former is absolutely unacceptable and the later is pragmatic. I would like to see the report in question. If it was kept by the authorities (which I have read it was and coincides with his account), I highly doubt that it resembled the former.
You should be losing sleep when you have facilitated the death of thousands of people and solitary confinement is used for jerks who punch other inmates. Why shouldn't we use it on guys like Salim?
We can't talk to prisoners anymore because you calim abuse and when we leave them alone, you claim solitary confinement? What if we give him a brand new car and a house in the Hamptons? Would that be appropriate?
Sarmatian
08-07-2008, 16:28
Comparing cold relations during proxy wars to a mad man's driver/bodyguard? Sorry, but that's a leap. You are completely disregarding prime motives during the cold war. The US administration was also removed by several levels of assiociation to what was going on compared to this man who was directly paid and worked directly for bin laden.
But don't let me interrupt here. Please let me hear how this man, a driver for a sociopathic terrorist, is compareable to US relations during the cold war.
Mad man definition and classification is open to debate. But I was trying to point out how entire logic of "guilty by association" is flawed. If we are to truly press that further, half the world's politicians would find themselves in jail. Well, there's a nice thought...:yes:
And if he would be sentenced by an Afghan court, you would assume that he had a fair trial?
The US would probably not give him to an afghan court. :dizzy2:
Craterus
08-07-2008, 19:29
I once held a door open for John Darwin. He got 6+ years so I should get...1 year + probation?
PanzerJaeger
08-07-2008, 20:50
5 1/2 years.
Shock.
Horror.
But will the liberal outrage end???? :furious3:
5 1/2 years.
Shock.
Horror.
But will the liberal outrage end???? :furious3:
I don't think that's considered a life sentence anywhere. :beam:
ICantSpellDawg
08-07-2008, 20:54
I don't think that's considered a life sentence anywhere. :beam:
It's the average life of a liberal brain cell. I can understand their skittishness.
tee-hee~:cool:
Not including you, Little Grizzly. You recognized that transporting scuds for use in terrorist activity was a criminal offense. I give you massive kudos.
I once held a door open for John Darwin. He got 6+ years so I should get...1 year + probation?
Did you know that John Darwin was the criminal behind this evolution theory at the time and did he pay you for it? :inquisitive:
I know it's another Darwin but I never heard of a John Darwin.
Tribesman
08-07-2008, 22:35
5 1/2 years.
Is this to include time served already ?
so he completes his sentence in 5 months time upon which he can remain inindefinate custody at the whim of the leader of the free world
Yay freedom and justice
Jack Bauer would approve. :2thumbsup:
Tribesman
08-08-2008, 00:09
Jack Bauer would approve.
Yes , but the important question is does Paris Hilton approve ?
LittleGrizzly
08-08-2008, 02:06
You recognized that transporting scuds for use in terrorist activity was a criminal offense.
I was working off the basis he was just a driver, now it seems alot more reasonable, obviously i still don't agree with his detention in gauntanamo and assume that will count as time served ?
ICantSpellDawg
08-08-2008, 02:34
[B] that will count as time served ?
I believe that is the deal. It was determined by a military jury and will be appealed at the Pentagon. I support the decision.
Yes, let us all ignore the fact that the notion "fair trial" is at the least questionable in this case.
PanzerJaeger
08-08-2008, 09:40
Yes, let us all ignore the fact that the notion "fair trial" is at the least questionable in this case.
TBH, while your intentions are noble and your point does resonate, you'd be hard pressed to find anyone here in America who gives a damn what you - the international citizen - think about this. If you catch them in your country, happily send them off to the Hague; but America was attacked in one of the most vile and disgusting ways imaginable, and if and when we nab these guys, they will answer to American justice.
We have widely varying views on our relations with the international community on most issues including Kyoto, Iraq, and trade, and you’ll find that many Americans do not agree with the current administration’s "our way or the highway" approach, but I think there is a fairly strong consensus on this one.. :shrug:
Tribesman
08-08-2008, 11:25
TBH, while your intentions are noble and your point does resonate, you'd be hard pressed to find anyone here in America who gives a damn what you - the international citizen - think about this.
And that is where they screw up , because like it or not this wide ranging campaign to attempt to bring people from al-qaida to justice needs lots of international co-operation and you don't get much co-operation if people think you are acting like an ass .
Think about this .
If a country arrests some al-qaida operative and America wants them extradited , that country may have a legal requirement to block any extradition if there is any question about the fairness of the trial that will be conducted .
Not of course to forget mentioning the other legal aspect that if a country catches some big Al-qaida knob and America wants to execute the knob then the country may be legally obliged to block all attempts at extradition .
The whole thing about the farcical events surrounding Gitmo , kidnap , rendition , torture , secret prisons , detention without trial and fairness of the justice system is that it has actually weakened your ability to conduct opertions against those that you are supposed to be binging to justice .
LittleGrizzly
08-08-2008, 16:28
As i understand certain countries are not allowed to extradite people they believe will be tortured as well, though with the process of rendition it is a sneaky way around that, but how long do you think countries will just let you quietly take guys from our country with no legal proceedings ? (probably a bit longer but sooner or later people will get pissed off with it, and then you might find it is suddenly harder to extradite through legal means)
By all means ignore international opinion but that don't be surprised (or angry) when international opinion ignores you
Hosakawa Tito
08-08-2008, 19:23
So....
A taxi driver who picks up and drives a criminal(which he is bound to do by law, btw) is now a criminal too?
Ask him what he had in the trunk ?
PanzerJaeger
08-08-2008, 21:11
And that is where they screw up , because like it or not this wide ranging campaign to attempt to bring people from al-qaida to justice needs lots of international co-operation and you don't get much co-operation if people think you are acting like an ass .
Think about this .
If a country arrests some al-qaida operative and America wants them extradited , that country may have a legal requirement to block any extradition if there is any question about the fairness of the trial that will be conducted .
Not of course to forget mentioning the other legal aspect that if a country catches some big Al-qaida knob and America wants to execute the knob then the country may be legally obliged to block all attempts at extradition .
The whole thing about the farcical events surrounding Gitmo , kidnap , rendition , torture , secret prisons , detention without trial and fairness of the justice system is that it has actually weakened your ability to conduct opertions against those that you are supposed to be binging to justice .
I agree with you to a certain extent. Enhanced interrogation et al should have been kept far away from the prying eyes of the media or not done at all. I'm just saying that most Americans do not support sending these guys off to an international court for the same reasons Adres doesn't support them being tried here.. fairness.
We can't lost from watch who is our enemy.
:daisy: who are not caring about any convension when they will not benefit from it.
They demand human rights but ... they never show it when torturing their victims.
They are murdering every prisoner or every civilian they caught but they are first to complain
when our forces kill civilian by mistake.
When I'm listenting to people yelling because law of terrorists are being broken - I think they should be send to Iraq and leave on street of Bagdad without weapons. I wonder if terrorist would show them human rights.
Every country and every nation has right to defend itself. Rule of law can be broken when
its necessary to defend nation or country. Thats why this judgement is right.
Terrorists must know that as long they break war rights they will not be under their protection.
At addition I would like to ask.... How human rights of war were being born?
Because when enemies behave with your soldiers same like you with enemy - it was bad option to torture prisoners. We have to show terrorists that we will not be playing with them.
The question is though, if we are to adopt the methods of the terrorists in order to combat them, why bother to combat them at all? We will have lost by default and achieved the terrorists' aims for them.
The struggle against Al Qaeda is first and foremost an ideological one, not military. This is the point Bush has always missed. The most important thing is that we show through our actions that our ideals are superior to theirs, by not engaging in the same sort of despicable methods they do. Actually convicting known terrorists is a secondary goal and is pointless if doing so means losing the ideological struggle.
Post above is good point but...
you forgot about their ideological point of view.
We have wars justified and non-justified.
Justified is defensive war or war for freedom.
They have justified and non-justified wars too.
But !!! war vs non islamists is always justified.
This is their religion and they seems respect this strategy.
Thats why we will never convince muslims and they will never support us as long
as they don't see potential benefits - stronger than their religion.
Understand that we are for them people of worse category. Their religion
tells them datase us and conquer us - we are destinated to be their slaves.
I think if we show them that we will not be .... with them like with young .....
and we reply on every act of agression with full strenght - they will understood that
long life might be better than islamic heaven.
Look at Americans and Mahdi Army. They made terrorist attacks into Faludża and keep that they
are undefeated warriors of god. When Americans show them that their will not .... with them
and conquered city eliminating most of islamists.... undefeated warriors of god started crying about
unjustified methods of fight used by Americans.
Mad man definition and classification is open to debate. But I was trying to point out how entire logic of "guilty by association" is flawed. If we are to truly press that further, half the world's politicians would find themselves in jail. Well, there's a nice thought...:yes:
The man isnt just "guilty of association" he has moved past association. He was working for Bin Laden, driving and apparently being a bodyguard on occasions. That's way beyond just assiociating with him, which is what he went to trial for.
Adrian II
08-09-2008, 18:18
Great news. At this rate they should get a conviction on Osama's hairdresser by, oh, 2025.
If you catch them in your country, happily send them off to the Hague; but America was attacked in one of the most vile and disgusting ways imaginable, and if and when we nab these guys, they will answer to American justice.
Problem with this. Of all the terrorists in prison, we hold a trial for a car driver? And one who wasn't even involved in the 9/11 attacks? Talk about a waste.
King Jan III Sobieski
08-16-2008, 00:51
I don't think any of this matters anymore; Russia invaded Georgia, and the U.S. is going to get involved and World War 3 is going to start and the world will end!!!!!!!!!! :help::help::help::sweatdrop: :sweatdrop: :sweatdrop::help::help::help:
Problem with this. Of all the terrorists in prison, we hold a trial for a car driver? And one who wasn't even involved in the 9/11 attacks? Talk about a waste.
He got off easy though. 66 months minus time served. He might get out while Bush is still in the office.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.