U.S. Said to Seek Execution for 6 in Sept. 11 Case (Gitmo Inmates)

[Hissyspit]

Source: New York Times

U.S. Said to Seek Execution for 6 in Sept. 11 Case

By WILLIAM GLABERSON
Published: February 11, 2008
Military prosecutors have decided to seek the death penalty for six Guantánamo detainees who are to be charged with central roles in the Sept. 11 terror attacks, government officials who have been briefed on the charges said Sunday.

The officials said the charges would be announced at the Pentagon as soon as Monday and were likely to include numerous war-crimes charges against the six men, including Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the former Qaeda operations chief who has described himself as the mastermind of the attacks, which killed nearly 3,000 people.

A Defense Department official said prosecutors were seeking the death penalty because “if any case warrants it, it would be for individuals who were parties to a crime of that scale.” The officials spoke anonymously because no one in the government was authorized to speak about the case. A decision to seek the death penalty would increase the international focus on the case and present new challenges to the troubled military commission system that has yet to begin a single trial.

- snip -

In addition to Mr. Mohammed, the other five to be charged include detainees officials say were coordinators and intermediaries in the plot, among them a man labeled the “20th hijacker,” who was denied entry to the United States in the month before the attacks.

Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/11/us/11gitmo.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

[annabanana]

1. Have they been able to see the evidence against them?

Are we sure we have the right guys?

oh wait. . i forgot. . it doesn't matter

[RuleOfNah]

6. The difference between Military court and Civil court is...

what is assumed about whom.

Military court is not, um, user friendly.

[johnhannahthree]

35. Not user friendly?

US Courts Martial have higher aquittal rates for criminal defendants than their civilian counterparts. They are extremely fair. If the GITMO defendants are given the rights of a US soldier facing a court martial they will have a fair trial. I didn't notice whether they would allow evidence gained by torture - but I am guessing not. That would be a grounds for appeal that I am guessing even this SCOTUS would have a problem with, given their previous rulings.

[RuleOfNah]

40. Why the push for military trials instead of civil trials?

Presumed guilt instead of presumed innocence is one stark difference that leaps to mind. Procedural concerns are next, and it keeps getting worse. Did a recent decision characterize the Gitmozied as non-persons?

Fair? The regime has lost all credibility when it comes to fair, CIC on down. Sorry if that inconvenient truth rubs you the wrong way.

[johnhannahthree]

41. Well then I guess you can stop worrying

because defendants are assumed innocent until proven guilty in US military courts martial. they can confront their accusers, see the evidence against them and appeal all the was to the US Supreme Court. A system like US courts martial is exactly what those of us who opposed the military tribunals in there original form said the defendants should be given. Either that or a US District Court.

There are a lot of people more worthy of your concern than the guys they just announced they will try.

You should start with all the people they haven´t charged, who probably haven´t done anything wrong and are sitting there without any idea if they will ever get out.

[RuleOfNah]

53. "a lot of people more worthy"

It is that lawless attitude that got the USA in this mess in the first place.

start with all the people they haven´t charged, who probably haven´t done anything wrong and are sitting there without any idea if they will ever get out

It can be difficult to do so. There are a lot of proudly ignorant people that one must discuss the obvious with before change is even considered.

[joeglow3]

54. It is my understanding we meet ALL international requirements...

...of a military court. If fact, with the right to appeal, the right to remain silent and the right to free attorneys (among other rights), they are being afforded more rights than any military court anywhere in modern history.

The biggest difference between military court and civilian court is that more evidence is allowed to be entered (i.e. heresay) in a military court. The reasoning is that the international community recognizes that in a war setting, you CANNOT have police come in, tape off a building, spend a fews days gathering evidence, etc.

Now, we can discuss if this qualifies as a “war” setting. I have yet to see much on what the international community considers.

[johnhannahthree]

61. The Real Problem

with the military commissions act is not the courts it established at GITMO (they are avtually pretty fair by international standards), but the vague wording of "unlawful enemy combatant." Despite the assurances of people who have proven themselves to be liars, it reads to me that the president can just declare anyone to be one and ship them off.

As far a KSM and the rest, I think that, if guilty, what they have allegedly done certainly qualifies as a war crime.

[RuleOfNah]

66. The biggest difference?

Wow, we clearly have a different understanding of court systems.

[joeglow3]

55. DUPE nt.

double post

[johnhannahthree]

58. thank you for enightening me

Wow and here I was wasting my time worrying about the poor Afghan goat farmer who happened to put his heard in the wrong valley one day and is now being held indefinately without charges instead of the likes KSM. And all this time I have been guilty of a lawless attitude.

[RuleOfNah]

65. The lawless attitude is revealed...

In the subtleness of "instead of" instead of "in addition to".

The current regime has made a farce of law, justice, morality, and reason. Push conditional morality as a shield for immoral and unjust practices if you like, you won't be the first 'needed on that wall'.

[johnhannahthree]

68. I guess you can call it conditional morality

I care about innocents illegally held indefinitely and couldn't give a shit less about the likes of KSM. I would call that being able to make very obvious distinctions. But call it whatever you want. You should have paid more attention during the "which one of these things is not like the other" excercises on Sesame Street. Or did you just holler "conditional morality" at the TV when the muppets were trying to show you the difference between a cricle and square.

[RuleOfNah]

73. You misspelled circle.

And your 'kill them all' flavored rant was most insightful. Thanks. I pray you are forgiven.

[TankLV]

46. umm - those in Gitmo are NOT allowed to see ANY evidence OR to have ANY legal representation...

that's already been reported. Read up on it.

These show "trials" are a shame and I are no better than the russian and nazi kangaroo courts.

Period.

not to mention allowable use of TORTURE, NO "habeus corpus", NO independent legal representation, all done in SECRET...

[johnhannahthree]

59. i think you are mistaking

the system Bush originally set up and the US Supreme Court struck down. Under the new system they are entitled to lawyers, access to the evidence and appeals.

[johnhannahthree]

60. dupe

dupe

[happyslug]

84. Very true, if you get to a US Military Court Martial, it is very fair.

Most enlistees who are railroaded by the Military are railroaded BEFORE they get to a Court Martial, i.e. they take an administrative "Punishment" to avoid a Court martial, without knowing the Court Martial would treat them fairer. This is the chief problem with the Military Legal System, how it is used BEFORE someone gets Court Martial (and how far people back off when you say "Court Martial me and get it over with" for a court marital is the last thing most people in authority wants to happen, for it will come down as hard on them as on the Defendant if the Defendant is in the right).

On the other hand, what is being set up is NOT under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) but its own rules. The first time it was used was doing the Mexican War, when General Scott ran across a problem. How do you try people NOT subject to the Articles of War (The statute in force at that time, replaced by the UCMJ in 1954) but then commit Crimes that no civilian court could hear do to the fact you were in a foreign country and that country's courts were in disarray? Thus General Scott set up the first Military Tribunal to handle such cases. They were used again in similar extra ordinary circumstances, but that was rare. Even at the time of the Mexican war most commentators believe they would be invalid if a Civil Court was available, but were legal if no civil court were available.

During WWII, FDR had a problem. He wanted German espionage agents executed for espionage, but he wanted to make it quick to set an example. FDR had served in Wilson administration during WWI, when German espionage in New York City caused a huge amount of Damage, the most famous was the 1916 Black Tom Explosion http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Tom_explosion and that was BEFORE the US was in WWI.

More on the mastermind of German WWI American Sabotage:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franz_von_Rintelen
http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=15210353&BRD=1291&PAG=461&dept_id=551343&rfi=6
von Rintelen had even help set up the "National Peace Council" to encourage Strikes.

Anyway, FDR did NOT want what had been a rash of Sabotage from 1915 through 1918 to resume and he believed a quick conviction and sentence would help prevent such sabotage (The WWI sabotages, because it was done before the US was in WWI, walked with sentences of only 1-3 years provided they were captured at all, most were not).

Thus FDR set up a WWII tribunal to try the Sabotages landed by U-Boat in the US. The trial was held and all of the people landed by U-Boat were sentenced to be hanged. FDR and the rest of his administration (including J Edgar Hoover of the FBI) was happy with this result. The Supreme Court even upheld it as military necessary given that the Country was at war. The trial was authorized by FDR on July 2, 1942 and upheld on appeal on July 29, 1942 (27 days from trial to final appeal). See Ex Parte Quirin http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/quirin.html They had landed on June 13 and June 17 1942, so from landing in the US to Final Ruling by the Supreme Court it was 46 days, counting from June 13). Please note the appeal to the Supreme court was during the trial, the court accepted it as extra-ordinarily and then upheld the Military tribunal as valid, basically foreclosing any other appeal on that issue (or any other issue, given that the 8 were clearly guilty, the only issue was who should try them and remembering the Irish hostility to Britain during WWI, FDR did NOT want a jury, who may NOT impose a death sentence).

The really Scary part was after the Supreme Court upheld the trial and Convictions and Sentence. Then the Government wanted to execute all eight of them. Someone managed to get into the papers an important fact that the commission had ruled insignificant, that the reason the eight were captured was that two of them turned themselves and the other six in to the FBI (And it later came out the first attempt was dismissed by the Agent contacted). After this came out, those two were re-sentenced to long prison sentences (and returned to Germany after the war, while before the end of their Life and 30 year sentences).

Justice Jackson's unpublished concurrence with the rest of the Court:
http://www.greenbag.org/goldsmith%203-28-06.pdf

The Quirin case is the case everyone is relying on to uphold the present military tribunal. Jackson in his concurrence (and in the main opinion) mentioned the Civil War cases which ruled otherwise but those involved Civilians NOT military personnel AND they were NOT performing military like actions (the rationale in Quirin). Please note Quirin was decided before the Geneva Convention of treatment of POWs, while the people who took over and flow the planes on 9/11 do NOT meet the requirements of the treaty, most of the people presently held do:

Geneva Convention on Treatment of POWs:
http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm

Which defines POWs as follows (ratified by the US Senate, but the people being tried, by Order of President Bush, do NOT fit any of these categories:
A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:

1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.

2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfill the following conditions:

(a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;

(b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;

(c) That of carrying arms openly;

(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

3. Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.

4. Persons who accompany the armed forces without actually being members thereof, such as civilian members of military aircraft crews, war correspondents, supply contractors, members of labour units or of services responsible for the welfare of the armed forces, provided that they have received authorization from the armed forces which they accompany, who shall provide them for that purpose with an identity card similar to the annexed model.

5. Members of crews, including masters, pilots and apprentices, of the merchant marine and the crews of civil aircraft of the Parties to the conflict, who do not benefit by more favourable treatment under any other provisions of international law.

6. Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.

[johnhannahthree]

34. yes, or at least they will according to the story

"But Hartmann said Monday that the defendants will get the same rights as U.S. soldiers tried under the military justice system including the right to remain silent, call witnesses, and know the evidence against them. Appeals can go all the way to the Supreme Court."

[TankLV]

47. umm - no they can't. It's already been widly reported. Go read the history of it..

NO "habeus corpus" - NO right to see the evidence against them.

NO legal representation - only the PROSECUTION can "appoint" their "representation".

NO right ot cross examination.

No right of ANY appeals.

NO chance to be heard by ANY other court, let alone the SOOTUS.

ALL done in SECRET.

what you are claiming is utterly BULLSHIT and the OPPOSITE of what this KANGAROO COURT is and will be...

go peddal your crap somewhere else...

[johnhannahthree]

57. Nice Potty Mouthed tirade

Just hurl a bunch of profanity when you can't make an argument.

according to CNN

The proceedings will be dictated by the Military Commissions Act, which Congress passed to handle arrestees in the war on terror. The act requires that the detainees have access to lawyers as well as to any evidence presented against them.

They also will have the right to appeal a guilty verdict, potentially through a civilian appeals court and perhaps the U.S. Supreme Court, according to the act. The government plans to make the proceedings as public as possible, said Brig Gen. Thomas Hartmann

http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/02/11/911.charges/index.html

[KansDem]

86. "Are we sure we have the right guys?"

Well, seeing how we attacked Iraq right after the Saudis attacked us?...I doubt it.

[Solly Mack]

2. From secret prison and torture to GTMO, no habeas corpus, and execution

shakes head

[shraby]

3. You forgot one..that takes care of the rest

of the evidence for torture.

[Solly Mack]

26. That's why I'm shaking my head

to the Bush administration, this is just another way to destroy the evidence (people as evidence)....and gain headlines.

[underpants]

24. AP- Pentagon to charge six in Sept. 11 terror attacks

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23108871

The PENTAGON charges people now??

[Solly Mack]

25. Probably meant the DoD/ "military tribunals"

Pentagon is DoD HQ

Not that I trust the military tribunals under Bush...'cause I don't.

[PSPS]

4. Dead men tell no tales

I suspect bush will have to murder at least those who were tortured so they can't testify against him or otherwise let the world know what's really going on at gitmo. (They publicly admitted last week that they tortured Khalid Shaikh Mohammed.)

Up until now, these kangaroo courts bush set up have been relatively benign. But once they start killing people under the guise of a "guilty verdict," I'd like to think that the rest of the world would deal with this seriously since we're apparently unable to do so here.

[LeftHander]

23. ding ding ding....

[OKthatsIT]

29. THATS EXACTLY IT! BUSH is worried about NEW INVESTIGATION

WHY CAN'T YOU ALL REALIZE THIS? 9/11 WAS AN INSIDE AND OUTSIDE JOB.

OUTSIDE JOB??? CHECK THE INTERNATIONAL ROTARY CLUB AT THE UN. ALL CONNECTIONS WITH GLADIO AND THE KNIGHTS OF MALTA. I THINK YOU'LL FIND THE DIRECTOR HAS DIRECT CONNECTIONS.

IN FACT...KEEP AN EYE ON THE INTERNATIONAL ROTARY CLUB IN AFRICA, AS WELL. THEY CAN MOVE SUPPLY SHIPMENTS INTO 'REGIONS OF CONFLICT'.

[INDIA]

31. haha, that's good satire! n/t

[sakabatou]

32. It's a consipracy

:crazy:

[pretzel4gore]

39. there were no hijackers...

and those buildings were demo'd. The killers controlled the staging, they controlled the reportage, and they controlled the media publicised reaction to the event, they even controlled the skeptics more or less...think of it as an FX movie, with all the reactions/blames preplanned, all the themes laid out in advance, the script simple and the funding literally in the $20 billion range; the peeople were just extras in the most expensive 'film shoot' ever carried out. And yes, that is hard to believe- and the passage of time says most of the ruling class were prepared to go along with the crime, in interest of social stability, and preserving something of what once made the USA rather special (it sure aint anymore) to the human race (after all, the killers were in control of the government)
Then again, what does it matter if the killers aint gonna be at least looked at, hard?

[sakabatou]

50. And at the same time, the killer at the Grassy Knoll

returned from the graaaa~ve!

[johnhannahthree]

63. If you believe all of that

how do you know anything is real? how do you know DU isn't a CIA operation, clinton and Obama are robots from the hall of presidents at Disney World and your parents aren't who they say they are - probably working for the CIA/DU cabal?

Seriously

[pretzel4gore]

77. ok, let's disregard 911

the 1993 bombers just put their truck in the WTC underground parking and let it blow- no fuss, no fanfare. And the creeps behind 911 obviously could have done it with 50 thousand people inside (if they had the guile to use 4 passenger jets, they surely had the guile to plant put enough gelenite in the WTC to have murdered alot more then 3000 people....but still, regardless, let's forget 911 for a moment. Look at the 2k election, and consider what that operation means. It means SOMEONE dared to tell the American people that regardless of their wishes, bush was to be prez. Period! A coup, or overthrow of the legal gov, but move along. So note the dichotomy here: they had the nerve to defy the american people regards the 2k election, yet lacked the nerve to be complicit in 911? So considerate were they that they went to considerable effort to limit the loss of life (some of the jets had only 25 people aboard, the part of Pentagon hit was also the part under renovation). But again, the fact is 911 was not so egregious as the theft of the 2k election, had the people noticed it (which virtually entire population now seems to have forgotten). But imagine telling an earlier generation that they could vote anyway they wanted, but the president was pre-selected! Your election is a sham! imagine what the old men woulda said to that. Yet Leno/letterman JOKED about bush stealing the 2k election within a few months of 911.
If you want proof that 911 was 'staged' (and i confess, i don't know how, no do i care) then consider the theft of the 2k election as it touched on 911. The NORC results, which prove Gore was the real elected president, having won by a 1/2 million votes (and this despite massive media fraud trying to demonise Gore) were due to be published that September, mid month. Had 911 not occurred, the NORC results might have triggered a reaction by the people of america, the same ones who have supposedly been bush's support(?) But 911 posponed the publication (they said the WTC catastrophe was so great that mixing in details about who won the 2k election would be 'distracting' or confusing etc) Indeed, the NORC results were so clear that the morning they were published, Nov 12/00, only 2 months after 911, flight 587 conveniently blew up after leaving a NY airport. But the bush gang hardly needed more terror, and airlines sure didn't need the people afraid to fly etc, so within an hour of the crash, the news reported that it was 'just an accident' All day long, they reported the disaster, but always in terms of an accident. And the NORC results? pushed off the front page (tv news never even mentioned them)...and thus foxnews and the bush mediawhores were able to claim the NORC results showed that bush won because electoral college and overseas votes blah blah blah...
Bush has proven he and the men around him are murdering criminals: why anyone doubts their complicity in 911 seems...rather foolish

[ChazII]

79. Exactly. n/t

[LynnTheDem]

5. America's gulag to become America's death camp.

USA! USA! USA!

[catnhatnh]

7. This is just one more farewell gift from GW....

My bet is fast trials,guilty verdicts, and death penalties announced just before the next election. See-the new Democratic President IS soft on terrorism....first act in office was commutation for Islamofaschists...or forced complicity in war crimes if they abstain.And even if by some dark miracle a Republican wins the election it is a nice gift-he can PROVE he's strong on terrorism or run from Bushes policies-whichever seems expedient.

[2Design]

8. torture fried their brains - they would probably welcome death versus usa torture n/t

[EmperorHasNoClothes]

9. Anyone up for a nice steaming bowl of October Surprise?

This will be trumpeted just in time to influence the election. Mark my words.

[MadMaddie]

11. The fact that it is being released now means that the trumpeting

has already started. Why not last year?

No the timing of this plays right into * legacy and the election.

These guys will see no evidence against them if they are executed, this will seal in the minds of the world that America is no better than any other countries that we claim superiority over.

[Demeter]

20. Well, That's Some Legacy, All Right! Bush Goes Out in Orgasmic Bloodletting

I cry for the country that once the US was.

[MadMaddie]

43. That's about right for a sociopath...he feels absolutely no guilt

for what he has done, you see his cronies got richer and the middle class is on the brink of being destroyed.

[kristopher]

12. Bingo. My thoughts exactly.

[defendandprotect]

17. The new Rosenbergs --- ???

[johnhannahthree]

36. Which rosenberg?

The innocent wife or the guilty husband?

[defendandprotect]

48. dupe

dupe

[defendandprotect]

49. Both --- innocent, I presume . . . at least according to the information I've read ---

and according to the political signs of the times ---

McCarthy Era --- an attack on the ideals of democracy ---

Another era of right-wing intimidation and political aggression ---
if not violence --

[johnhannahthree]

56. he was guitly but she probably wasn't

In 1995, the National Security Agency publicly released documents from the VENONA project, an effort to decrypt intercepted communications between Soviet agents and the NKVD/KGB. A 1944 cable from New York City to Moscow clearly indicates that a spy with the code named ANTENNA and later LIBERAL (who the Federal Bureau of Investigation later decided was Julius Rosenberg) was engaged in espionage for the Soviet Union, though the importance of the activities of LIBERAL/ANTENNA is not clear, particularly considering that the Soviets were receiving information on the atomic bomb from Klaus Fuchs, Donald Maclean and Theodore Hall. From the VENONA transcripts alone, one could make a strong case that Ethel was never a spy. A document from November 27, 1944 <2> specifically about "LIBERAL's wife" who is identified with the first name, Ethel, lists her as a "fellow countryman" and claims that she was aware of Julius's work. "LIBERAL's wife" Ethel was never assigned a code name—the only reference to her states she "does not work." Meredith Gardner, the Russian linguist who worked intensely on the VENONA decryptions, was quoted as saying that the work statement indicates that "LIBERAL's WIFE," Ethel, was not an espionage agent. Julius was always referred to as "ANTENNA" or "LIBERAL", never by his own name—which has led some to doubt that the FBI's connection of "LIBERAL" to Julius Rosenberg was accurate, but the preponderance of opinion is that LIBERAL/ANTENNA does refer to Julius Rosenberg.

In his memoirs, published posthumously in 1990, Nikita Khrushchev praised the pair for their "very significant help in accelerating the production of our atomic bomb." Alexander Feklisov, a former KGB officer, disagreed, stating that the information given was "meaningless".<8>

Faced with the VENONA transcripts and periodic revelations from former Soviet intelligence officials and archives, most critiques of the Rosenbergs' prosecution today has shifted towards the usefulness of classified nuclear information allegedly provided by Julius Rosenberg and David Greenglass to the Soviet Union, the severity of their punishment, and the fact that not all Soviet spies were caught, and not all who were caught were prosecuted by the U.S. government. The atom bomb information that Greenglass claimed to have given to the Soviets appears to have been quite poor in comparison to the information given by Fuchs, who had a much more intimate understanding of the research being done (revealed by records of Fuchs' detailed transmissions in selective releases from Soviet archives) and a much more sophisticated theoretical understanding of the mechanisms of the bomb. There was also significant information provided independently of Fuchs by the young scientist Theodore Hall, as well as potentially more agents, the identities of whom have not yet been fully established.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosenbergs

[defendandprotect]

71. Yes . . . meaningless information ---

Certainly Ethel wasn't involved in any meaningful way in anything --
But her BROTHER was . . .

And I'm sure in some future years we will better understand the driving motive in all
of this --- i.e., right-wing politics!!!

[johnhannahthree]

72. it really hasn´t been clear

if she was involved. So her execution was a miscarriage of justice. Maybe she was maybe she wasn't but I have never seen anything that led me to believe she deserved what she got. He on the other hand, regardless of how usefull the information - Kruschev said it was very usefull - got what he deserved. He was, in fact, doing all he could to give the Soviets the bomb, putting every single living American at the time at risk of obliteration. Al Quaeda could´t do that on their best game day.

[defendandprotect]

75. I think we all need to reanalyze the past .... in view of the extravagant

warmongering we've seen in the last 20 years --- backed up by great political violence --
including info about Operation Gladio, Mockingbird, etal ---

Northwoods
Huston Plan

Obviously, we haven't been living quite in the country we thought we were living in ---

First --- AlQaeda is something that America invented --- our CIA financed the start up of
the Taliban --- using religious fanatics and arming them and then according to Brz . . .

"We went into Afghanistan 6 months before the Russians . . . and we did so in order to BAIT
them into Russia . . . . in hopes of giving them a Vietnam-type experience."

Pretty vile, eh?

Also take a look at Brig. Gen. Smedley Darlington Butler's "War is a Racket" --
it's on the internet.

VN --- another major farce intended to be a perpetual war --- and it was brutal and cruel ---
with 4 million VN dead? And great damage to our own soldiers.

So when you come to the Rosenbergs in that period of time, it was obvious to many that the
r-w had created great fear --- out of bounds fear -- in order to keep their Cold War fantasy
going.

As you might remember, JFK quickly made the Cold War laughable --
The biggest danger to us has been the MIIC -- military industrial intelligence complex as
cited by Ike.

[pretzel4gore]

80. George Blake, Klaus Fuchs, Maclean, Philby

maybe the Rosenbergs...they all are really heroes for helping the USSR get the bomb as soon as it did, (not to mention China 20 years later). The US used nukes on Japan DESPITE Japan's efforts to surrender in 1945, and it's in that context the named spies sacrificed their lives trying to help the Worker's ie Soviet, Union, get the bomb. Had the USSR not had the bomb, how much worse would history have been (see Spain circa 1936 to get taste of the west's real attitude toward fascism)...it's only by a stroke of fortune (hitler's greed and arrogance) that the 'allies' never went along with hitler's schemes (see Prescot bush, the Duke of Windsor, Charles Lindberg, not to mention Henry Ford and most of the financial elite) and had that happened, the 'holocaust' would barely be mentioned in today's hushtory books, and we would have nuked Moscow to affect regime change back in the 50's, and Adolph Hitler would be like pinochet, or samoza, or suharto, or shah/iran, or Ferdinand marcos, or franco, iow a good 'friend' whom no gentleman would ever invite to dinner, though their crimes were long forgotten

[defendandprotect]

81. After WWII, many thought the plans should be turned over to the UN . . .

Yes -- our "history" is really screwed up but many have caught on that it is simply the propaganda of white elite males.

And now, we can see from the Sibel Edmonds infrormation that it is being trafficked now for political reasons, but for $$$$$ --- !!!!

Allen Dulles, Prescot Bush --- and many others in America and internationally supported Hitler--
Dulles was cashing in huge amounts of dollars to collect the gold and ship it to Hitler.

The United Nations, of course, was a great idea which has been sunken by US interference a la
the John Birch Society agenda ---

and the hostility of the GOP where they invited the UN to leave NYC --- !!!

[defendandprotect]

82. It is those who brought Gitmo to us and those who ran it who should be on trial --- !!!

Especially Bush/Cheney --- !!!

[johnhannahthree]

74. In fact

David Greenglass admitted in 2001 that he perjured himself when he testified against Ethel. So yeah, Ethel got screwed. Julius not so much.

[jktaber]

85. Identification of ANTENNA/LIBERAL

johnhannathree said:

"Julius was always referred to as "ANTENNA" or
"LIBERAL", never by his own name—which has led some
to doubt that the FBI's connection of "LIBERAL" to
Julius Rosenberg was accurate, but the preponderance of
opinion is that LIBERAL/ANTENNA does refer to Julius
Rosenberg."

Please let me clarify.

There is no question that ANTENNA/LIBERAL was Julius
Rosenberg, but the identification was made by old fashioned
police work, not by the decrypts.

There is a memo by Alan Belmont, third in command at the FBI
at the time that says ANTENNA was thought to be Joseph
Weisbrod because according to the decrypts ANTENNA attended
Cooper Union, was a Communist Party member, worked at Fort
Monmouth, and his wife was named Ethel. All of this fit Joseph
Weisbrod precisely.

See http://cryptome.org/fbi-nsa.htm for a searchable copy of
Belmont's memo.

In one decrypt, Julius Rosenberg proposed Max Elitcher to the
KGB as an agent. No cover name was used for Elitcher because
he hadn't been vetted yet. Generally, cover names were
assigned once the prospect was accepted.

(I use "KGB" loosely for NKVD, GRU, MGB, and KGB.
There were several Soviet intelligence agencies, and they went
through an alphabet soup of acronyms just like ours). 

The FBI tracked Elitcher down, and asked him directly who
recruited him. He answered truthfully Julius Rosenberg, who
had attended Cooper Union per the decrypts, was a CP member,
worked at Fort Monmouth, and whose wife was named Ethel. In my
opinion, this is excellent police work. 

Belmont cited this identification particularly because the
gist of his memo was to advise against introducing the
decrypts as evidence. And the reason for this advice was
because the decrypts were not evidence, they were hearsay.
Belmont said they could be admitted as expert opinion, but he
argued that the defense could introduce their own experts to
contradict the opinions. The decrypts were too sketchy (only a
few were decrypted, and of those few, much fewer were
complete, mostly insignificant messages dealing with
Lend-Lease), and the identifications of cover names too
uncertain, and thus were vulnerable to successful rebuttal in
court. 

By my count, less than 3500 messages were decrypted, most of
them incompletely at that. Depending on which military
historian you read, total intercepted KGB messages were
700,000 or 750,000. In other words, about 0.5% of the total
intercepts comprise the VENONA decrypts.

Belmont, to clinch his argument, said that the NSA wanted to
keep the decrypts secret. The secrecy argument has been too
much overplayed. It was a factor, but the important reason the
decrypts were not used is that they were not compelling
evidence for a court.

As I interpret the decrypts Julius Rosenberg was a devoted and
important Soviet agent, but it is not clear what his esponiage
was from the decrypts alone. The KGB respected and sought his
opinions, and in one decrypt worried about his health because
he was overworking himself. He was responsible for
microfilming, but of what isn't stated. It could be A-bomb
secrets, or radar, or IFF (Identification, Friend or Foe). 

Finally, as I read the decrypts, Ethel knew what her husband
was doing, but was not a spy herself. A decrypt says her
health was too poor for "work", which you have noted
was KGB jargon for espionage. 

[RuleOfNah]

76. Who, Bush and friends?

I keep hearing rumors about a Republican/Turkey/nuclearsecrets scandal. Funny how that scandal doesn't get the same amount of attention as the Rosenberg scandal...

[jpak]

51. Karl Rove's Gitmo Show Trial

:puke:

[The Backlash Cometh]

10. Not before we find out why Bush wants to silence them.

[sam sarrha]

13. killing to just to shut them up...?? cheaper than a lawsuit

[pingzing58]

14. Their deaths will serve only to placate a morbid sense of retribution. While selling their souls

to the devil, the Repugs are proud to announce that they are "tough on crime." In the day of judgement these individuals who were "party to a crime" will rise up with the just and judge those who accused them. And the accusers and their cohorts will be an everlasting horror and shame to the people. No one escapes God's judgement so: Judge not and you will not be judged. The measure you measure with will be measured back to you. Vengeance is mine says the Lord. Do no return evil with evil, but conquer evil with good. If you are sued for your shirt, give them your coat as well. If a soldier forces you to carry their gear for a mile, carry it for two. Give to those who ask of you and do not expect anything in return. Then all will see that you are sons and daughters of the Most High God.

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

21. their deaths will be a rallying cry for decades, hardly helpful

Why do you think Israel doesn't execute terrorists?

These people should be forgotten in a hole somewhere, not served up as a spectacle for the US media and terrorist sympathizers around the world.

[johnhannahthree]

69. Maybe

I think executing them is probably a bad idea because the trials will never have any credibility with the international community due to the torture. If they had gone throught the same system Tim McVeigh did, I would have no problem with giving them the one-way ticket to hell the deserve. As for the Israelis, well it isn't as if they have eliminated their terrirism problem. i'm not sure i would look to them for advice on the matter.

[cstanleytech]

15. I'm laying money down

that this will not really be acted upon until its closer to the elections and it wont be reported much either by FoX News until its closer, after all we all have seen how well they manipulate elections and the voting public before with things like sham votes on gay rights for example.

[defendandprotect]

16. What B.S. .... the TORTURe will end that -- and holding them 7 years!!!

Justice --- swift?

And, these people have basically been held incommunicado ---

[defendandprotect]

18. Execute 6 people and we'll all feel so much better about 9/11 --- and ....

I presume the explosive violence of this administration which revenged the deaths of 3,000 Americans allegedly by killing more than 2 million Iraqi civilians --- !!!

Forget impeachment --- let's just put these people in psycho wards ---

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

19. So there are two "20th hijacker's"?

This should be a farce of epic proportions,

[RedSock]

28. actually there have been something like 5 or 6 (eom)

[johnhannahthree]

64. Wasn't massoui (sp)

convicted of being the 20th hijacker? My favorite though is "number 3" guy in al Quaeda. I think we catch or kill him every couple of weeks.

[MrSlayer]

22. If I thought they were actually involved I'd say go ahead and kill them.

But I do not. I don't believe anything at all that they say about 9/11.

[johnhannahthree]

70. So what do you think happened?

If it wasn't al Quaeda, then who did it? clinton did try to kill bin Laden? Why do you think he did so?

[CJCRANE]

87. What is "al-Qaeda"?

It is the name of the "database" of fighters and operatives formerly in the Mujahideen (who mainly fought against the Soviets in Afghanistan).

Anyone with enough money and the right connections can sponsor one of their operations
(there is a quote by "Buzzy" Krongard to that effect - maybe another DUer knows the one I'm talking about).

Follow the money.

[RL3AO]

27. Good idea. Lets martyr them so we will feel better.

Let them rot in prison.

[hedgehog]

30. So the people involved in the first attack on the World Trade Center

were arrested, given a public trial and forgotten. Bush can't have that. He has to make martyrs!

[0xDEADBEEF]

33. Fail W. McFailsalot fails again!

I'm afraid I'm going to have to disagree with a lot of people who posted here.

Only six? From a former Texas governor who loved frying poor black defendants of questionable guilt, defended by public defenders? And now he turns soft on the Death Penalty when we really need it?

From Wikipedia, I see, "Since the beginning of the War in Afghanistan, 775 detainees have been brought to Guantanamo, approximately 420 of which have been released. As of August 9, 2007, approximately 355 detainees remain. More than a fifth are cleared for release but may have to wait months or years because U.S. officials are finding it increasingly difficult to line up places to send them, according to Bush administration officials and defense lawyers. Of the roughly 355 still incarcerated, U.S. officials said they intend to eventually put 60 to 80 on trial and free the rest. On February 9, 2008 it was reported that 6 of the detainess at the Guantanamo Bay facility would be prosecuted for conspiracy in the 9/11 terrorist attacks."

So more than half have been allowed to return to their previous lives (as terrorists?) And Bush is seeking the Death Penalty for less than one percent? Remember, these are the guys that Rummy called "the worst of the worst." Lower-level Al-Qaeda members were just turned over to the Northern Alliance, to face a form of summary justice known as "Death by Container," or being left in a metal box in the hot desert sun, to suffocate or die of heat exhaustion.

I'm not a huge fan of the Death Penalty, especially as practiced in Texas in the 90's, but there are a few cases that deserve it. If Carla Faye Tucker deserved to die, how are 769 Al-Qaeda members less of a threat than she was?

I'm sorry, but yeah, I honestly believe some guy with the middle name "Hussein" will be tougher on terrorism than some chimp with the middle name of "W."

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

37. This freak show is going to create superstar martys

This is going to be an international media freakshow and when these guys are executed they will be the new superstars of the islamic world.

Everytime the french executed an FLN terrorist in Algeria they made things worse, the beheadings were not perceived to be the execution of a criminal, they were seen to be the making of a martyr. Everytime the guillotine fell dozens of french soldiers and civilians were killed in reprisals.

Has anyone pondered why Israel doesn't executed terrorists despite "crimes against the jewish people" being a capital charge?

Muslims see prisoners of the infidels as cowards and they are soon forgotten, executing them in a public spectacle will make them the greatest of martyrs, being the fearless muslim fighters killed by the infidels at Guantanamo Bay of all places.

[Thor_MN]

38. Gotta shred the evidence before a competant administration gets their hands on it.

[bamacrat]

42. Those responsible for 9/11 will not be found in Gitmo.

They occupy our government, past and present, and possibly the governments of other countries that would stand to gain. None of the gitmo detainees should be executed, with no evidence of any kind it would be murder.

[AlphaCentauri]

44. Cleaning the house before the next president

[TankLV]

45. This is just bad - why even bother to have any "trials" and just shoot them...

anybody who thinks this is "justice" and "fair" is an IDIOT...

sounds just like the trials the Nazis and Russians used to have that we used to complain about...

we're no better than them now...

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

62. because they want to set a precident, for future use against Americans

[SKKY]

52. I agree with the death penalty...

...but not like this. There will be no credibility what-so-ever to these trails, and we'll end up looking worse than we already do- if that's possible. Keep these guys in prison for life, and not make Martyrs out of them.

[Seabiscuit]

67. Uh... you have to try and convict them, first. Then you get to the penalty phase.

[IndianaGreen]

78. As long as we execute Bush and Cheney alongside with them

The terrorist attack of Iraq by American crusaders dwarfs the horrors and the casualties of 9-11 a thousand fold. If a similar calamity had been unleashed on America by a foreign invader, 20 million Americans would be displaced and millions more would be dead, wounded, or suffering from PTSD.

[dysfunctional press]

83. too bad it's not the right 6...

but hey- it's their world, and we just happen to live in it.