Conspiracy to Commit Terrorism [i]not[/i] a war-crime.

[Peter F]

"Conspiracy to commit terrorism” not a war-crime. It certainly is a crime but definitely not a war crime therefore the U.S.of A.’s Military Commissions trials in Guantanamo had no authority to try anyone of the charge. This is an example of ‘Made Up Law’ that many blame judges for doing except in this case it was the government making up law and then creating a court system to try that made up law.

The quotes below are from http://justsecurity.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/al-bahlul.pdf

(and I’ve omitted the many many citations)

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

Argued October 22, 2014 Decided June 12, 2015 No. 11-1324

ALI HAMZA AHMAD SULIMAN AL BAHLUL, PETITIONER

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, RESPONDENT

On Petition for Review from the

United States Court of Military Commission Review

…

Bahlul contends that his inchoate conspiracy conviction must be vacated because: (1) Congress exceeded its authority under Article I, § 8 of the Constitution by defining crimes triable by military commission that are not offenses under the international law of war; (2) Congress violated Article III of the Constitution by vesting military commissions with jurisdiction to try crimes that are not offenses under the international law of war..we conclude, for the following reasons, that his conviction for inchoate conspiracy must be vacated.

…

I particularly liked judge Tatels explanation for his joining the majority judgement:

TATEL, Circuit Judge, concurring

Despite the government’s protestations, moreover, this court’s holding will not “inappropriately restrict” the nation’s ability to ensure that those who conspire to commit terrorism are appropriately punished. After all, the government can always fall back on the apparatus it has used to try federal crimes for more than two centuries: the federal courts.

Federal courts hand down thousands of conspiracy convictions each year, on everything from gun-running to financial fraud to, most important here, terrorism…since September 11, 2001, prosecutors have prevailed in almost 200 “jihadist-related” terrorism and national-security cases in federal courts)...“the most commonly charged crimes” have included violations of 18 U.S.C. § 371, for “general criminal conspiracy”..

For instance, Zacarias Moussaoui—the potential 20th 9/11 hijacker—pled guilty in federal court to six counts of conspiracy for his role in planning the 2001 attacks...a federal jury convicted Wadih el Hage, Mohamed Odeh, and Mohamed al Owhali for conspiring to bomb the American embassies in Kenya and Tanzania...and Ahmed Abu Khattalah, who stands accused of conspiring to attack the American diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya, awaits trial in this very courthouse…

By contrast, although the detention camp at the U.S. naval station at Guantánamo Bay has held at least 780 individuals since opening shortly after September 11th, and although military prosecutors have brought charges against some two hundred, the commissions have convicted only eight: al Bahlul, Hamdan, Noor Uthman Muhammed, David Hicks, Omar Khadr, Majid Khan, Ibrahim al Qosi, and Ahmed al Darbi.

Furthermore, due to various questions about the military- commission process itself, as of this writing only three of those convictions—Khan’s, al Darbi’s, and al Qosi’s—remain on the books and unchallenged.

[Freddy]

I laughed so hard. " a made up law ".

As apposed to what? A law that wasn't made up?

Edited June 13, 2015 by Charles Anthony
deleted re-copied OP

[On Guard for Thee]

When you make up a law, and then attempt to retroactively apply it, you find yourself at odds with the previously made up laws. Proper courts usually know better, and those proper courts have now reigned in the kangaroo ones.

[Freddy]

When you make up a law, and then attempt to retroactively apply it, you find yourself at odds with the previously made up laws. Proper courts usually know better, and those proper courts have now reigned in the kangaroo ones.

Their all kangaroo courts, depending on your biased ideology.

If you choose to to accept one and not a other, It's only based on your opinion. And everyone has a different one of those.

[On Guard for Thee]

Their all kangaroo courts, depending on your biased ideology.

If you choose to to accept one and not a other, It's only based on your opinion. And everyone has a different one of those.

So you disagree with the rule of law.

[Freddy]

So you disagree with the rule of law.

. I don't, I'm just not in denial of what they are. All of them are made up. Then it's just a matter of opinion wether you accept them or not.

[On Guard for Thee]

. I don't, I'm just not in denial of what they are. All of them are made up. Then it's just a matter of opinion wether you accept them or not.

Either you do, or you don't. Laws can be, and are, changed. And once again you like to be the master of the obvious, of course they are made up.

[Freddy]

Either you do, or you don't. Laws can be, and are, changed. And once again you like to be the master of the obvious, of course they are made up.

That's why I laughed.

The OP is suggesting this law was "made up".

Unconstitutional law? Maybe?

They are military prisoners... Let the military do their jobs

Edited June 13, 2015 by Freddy

[cybercoma]

. I don't, I'm just not in denial of what they are. All of them are made up. Then it's just a matter of opinion wether you accept them or not.

The point was not about the laws being "made up." It was about creating new laws and applying the retroactively.

[Freddy]

The point was not about the laws being "made up." It was about creating new laws and applying the retroactively.

As far as I'm concerned they are enemies of the State. I'll let the military take care of them as they see fit.

[cybercoma]

As far as I'm concerned they are enemies of the State. I'll let the military take care of them as they see fit.

So you don't care about the rule of law, as On Guard said.

[Freddy]

So you don't care about the rule of law, as On Guard said.

I don't accept all of them. Most of them are kangaroo court laws.

I'm always g walking and speeding over the limits, I stretch my stops even.

Bunch of kangaroo laws as far as I'm concerned.

Edited June 13, 2015 by Freddy

[GostHacked]

Not even our leaders follow the rule of law.

[On Guard for Thee]

Not even our leaders follow the rule of law.

Just because Bush junior got away with murder doesnt mean they all can. Look where Ray Nagin is these days.

[Freddy]

Just because Bush junior got away with murder doesnt mean they all can. Look where Ray Nagin is these days.

who???

[On Guard for Thee]

who???

Im sure you know who Bush is, Nagin used to be mayor of New Orleans, now serving a 10 year sentence for money laundering.

[GostHacked]

Just because Bush junior got away with murder doesnt mean they all can. Look where Ray Nagin is these days.

Presidents can and do get away with murder. Two words, predator drones.

[Freddy]

When your at the top of the food chain, nothing can hold you accountable.

[Topaz]

I just finished a book called Operation Gladio and talk about breaking the law, the CIA was in the drug business bringing it in to the USA and they were/are laundering money without the world and of course, people in high places were involved....

[cybercoma]

I don't accept all of them. Most of them are kangaroo court laws.

I'm always g walking and speeding over the limits, I stretch my stops even.

Bunch of kangaroo laws as far as I'm concerned.

Then there's nothing to discuss other than your arbitrary picking and choosing of which laws you think should be followed and which ones shouldn't.

[Rue]

With due respect Freddy Peter F suggested the Guantanao Bay laws attempted a legal fiction which is what he meant by made up. In his defence he ent they attempted to create a new definition for terrorism that would not fit under existing US criminal aw or military law so as to justify a hybrid law and court system that was a bit of both but failed the essential elements of natural justice both required and were deleted under this new law.

The mistake was the phrasing of the definition of war crime as well as lack of full disclosure of evidence making it impossible to defend properly. The latter was immediately identified by the US Supreme Court as a fatal faw and in effect rendered all decisions illegal. Bush kept trying to create new laws saying they would replace the old flawed ones and address the flawed issues, but they never did and so were struck out two more times.

In terms of how the crimes were described, quite frankly had the term "war" not been used and full disclosure of the evidence was given the lawsmuight not have violated the US constitution.By leaving the term "war" in it could justify Bush using his military as the enforcement agency.

The problem there was there was already existing US military law and that stated you would have had to treat these people as pow's not the special category of war criminal that was created for this law or made up to enable this law to exist and be argued to supercede US military law.

Bottom line is, there is no international law that defines terrorist but there are any that define war criminals but they were drafted in contemplation of civilians or politicians committing crimes against civilians not terrorists.

Terrorists are not members of a sovereign state's armed forces. If they were, only if that country was a signatory to the international Geneva conventions would that word then apply if found to be true by an international war tribunal.

Terrorists don't recognize any laws. They don't sign treaties and volunteer to follow them which is what states have to do for these laws to even be applied.

The US had narrow choices-send Kadr to the Afghanis,send him to the US as a pow under US military law, or create a new federal law giving them jurisdiction to try him in the US of murder not as a war criminal but under a new definition of crime.

Bush did not want civilian courts touching Kadr or the terrorists because he was advised theUS constitution would demand full disclosure of evidence and he did not want to jeapardize state security secrets.

Another issue was Bush violated existing federal laws by trying to pass laws that were found to be unconstitutional that redefined certain interrogation techniques as not being torture otherwise the evidence obtained would be struck out.

Since most evidence was obtained by water boarding or beatings, it would have been inadmissible because of the Us constitution.

Bush made critical mistakes in allowing non military contracted civilians access to interrogate terrorists. It was short sighted in that it openly violated US military, and federal laws and the US constitution.

It was a complicated mess and Bush was panned by the US Supreme Court thinking he could legislate his way out of having to follow theUS Supreme Court rulings.

Us military law alone, could have dealt with Kadr but they would have treated him as a pow and so he would have been afforded rights he was not under the laws Bush created.

Under domestic US federal law a new one could have been added but he would have to be kept in a civilian prison, be allowed full disclosure of charges and because of his age and the method of interrogation used against him would have had a whole assortment of US laws and cases not to ention its constitution to get his charges thrown out. Bush's regime did not want him released and allowed politics to supercede law in their reactions.

Bush was in a no win situation.

Kadr quite frankly and ironically was given all the rights and freedoms he has robbed from the medic, the medic' children and loved ones.Kadr has benefitted from the very laws he was taught to blow up and to date never once has he shown or stated anything to the effect he acknowledges the things he took away from that medic and his children and loved ones.

Its tell tale lack of admission and to me until I see him apologize to that family and them what he did was wrong and state the very y laws the medic died for are what Kadr now embraces and calls on to be free-until he states that to them and the world, he's just a pawn and continues to be one.

He can't set himself free until he rejects not only his family and beliefs neither of which he has done, but his own lawyer who tells him he is victim of injustice.

Lack of genuine remorse is what makes this so repulsive to me. The very laws he attacked now guarantee his freedom and damned if he admits it.

[jacee]

Kadr quite frankly and ironically was given all the rights and freedoms he has robbed from the medic, the medic' children and loved ones.

Speer was not assigned as a medic that day, just an armed soldier.

Kadr has benefitted from the very laws he was taught to blow up and to date never once has he shown or stated anything to the effect he acknowledges the things he took away from that medic and his children and loved ones.

Its tell tale lack of admission and to me until I see him apologize to that family and them what he did was wrong and state the very y laws the medic died for are what Kadr now embraces and calls on to be free-until he states that to them and the world, he's just a pawn and continues to be one.

Yes he has apologized.

You didn't read that?

He can't set himself free until he rejects not only his family and beliefs neither of which he has done,

Yes he has.

You don't bother to read?

but his own lawyer who tells him he is victim of injustice.

Lack of genuine remorse is what makes this so repulsive to me. The very laws he attacked now guarantee his freedom and damned if he admits it.

I think you should research more before speaking so your lack of knowledge isn't so obvious.

http://m.thestar.com/#/article/news/world/2015/05/06/omar-khadr-ready-for-release.html

Edited June 13, 2015 by jacee

[bush_cheney2004]

....Lack of genuine remorse is what makes this so repulsive to me. The very laws he attacked now guarantee his freedom and damned if he admits it.

Yeah...kinda funny...ain't it ?

Next time....just give Khadr what he wanted...martyrdom. Save everybody from a lot of paperwork.

[On Guard for Thee]

Yeah...kinda funny...ain't it ?

Next time....just give Khadr what he wanted...martyrdom. Save everybody from a lot of paperwork.

And where do you get all those kangaroos to staff your courts...

[On Guard for Thee]

With due respect Freddy Peter F suggested the Guantanao Bay laws attempted a legal fiction which is what he meant by made up. In his defence he ent they attempted to create a new definition for terrorism that would not fit under existing US criminal aw or military law so as to justify a hybrid law and court system that was a bit of both but failed the essential elements of natural justice both required and were deleted under this new law.

The mistake was the phrasing of the definition of war crime as well as lack of full disclosure of evidence making it impossible to defend properly. The latter was immediately identified by the US Supreme Court as a fatal faw and in effect rendered all decisions illegal. Bush kept trying to create new laws saying they would replace the old flawed ones and address the flawed issues, but they never did and so were struck out two more times.

In terms of how the crimes were described, quite frankly had the term "war" not been used and full disclosure of the evidence was given the lawsmuight not have violated the US constitution.By leaving the term "war" in it could justify Bush using his military as the enforcement agency.

The problem there was there was already existing US military law and that stated you would have had to treat these people as pow's not the special category of war criminal that was created for this law or made up to enable this law to exist and be argued to supercede US military law.

Bottom line is, there is no international law that defines terrorist but there are any that define war criminals but they were drafted in contemplation of civilians or politicians committing crimes against civilians not terrorists.

Terrorists are not members of a sovereign state's armed forces. If they were, only if that country was a signatory to the international Geneva conventions would that word then apply if found to be true by an international war tribunal.

Terrorists don't recognize any laws. They don't sign treaties and volunteer to follow them which is what states have to do for these laws to even be applied.

The US had narrow choices-send Kadr to the Afghanis,send him to the US as a pow under US military law, or create a new federal law giving them jurisdiction to try him in the US of murder not as a war criminal but under a new definition of crime.

Bush did not want civilian courts touching Kadr or the terrorists because he was advised theUS constitution would demand full disclosure of evidence and he did not want to jeapardize state security secrets.

Another issue was Bush violated existing federal laws by trying to pass laws that were found to be unconstitutional that redefined certain interrogation techniques as not being torture otherwise the evidence obtained would be struck out.

Since most evidence was obtained by water boarding or beatings, it would have been inadmissible because of the Us constitution.

Bush made critical mistakes in allowing non military contracted civilians access to interrogate terrorists. It was short sighted in that it openly violated US military, and federal laws and the US constitution.

It was a complicated mess and Bush was panned by the US Supreme Court thinking he could legislate his way out of having to follow theUS Supreme Court rulings.

Us military law alone, could have dealt with Kadr but they would have treated him as a pow and so he would have been afforded rights he was not under the laws Bush created.

Under domestic US federal law a new one could have been added but he would have to be kept in a civilian prison, be allowed full disclosure of charges and because of his age and the method of interrogation used against him would have had a whole assortment of US laws and cases not to ention its constitution to get his charges thrown out. Bush's regime did not want him released and allowed politics to supercede law in their reactions.

Bush was in a no win situation.

Kadr quite frankly and ironically was given all the rights and freedoms he has robbed from the medic, the medic' children and loved ones.Kadr has benefitted from the very laws he was taught to blow up and to date never once has he shown or stated anything to the effect he acknowledges the things he took away from that medic and his children and loved ones.

Its tell tale lack of admission and to me until I see him apologize to that family and them what he did was wrong and state the very y laws the medic died for are what Kadr now embraces and calls on to be free-until he states that to them and the world, he's just a pawn and continues to be one.

He can't set himself free until he rejects not only his family and beliefs neither of which he has done, but his own lawyer who tells him he is victim of injustice.

Lack of genuine remorse is what makes this so repulsive to me. The very laws he attacked now guarantee his freedom and damned if he admits it.

You do seem to like to go on at length displaying just how much you (dont) understand about law. You could start by studying up something known to those who do understand law, as habeas corpus. Take your time.