He’s a terrorist and the self proclaimed mastermind of the worst terrorist attack in American history. His name is Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and he is currently facing a military trial at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. He and the four other co-defendants have been charged with 2,976 counts of murder yet they still manage to turn a standard 2 hour pretrial hearing into a 13 hour circus. They’re killers and a stagnant reminder of what was supposed to be a beautiful September day. They were to be tried in U.S courts however Congress blocked that action and so they sit smugly at Guantanamo Bay where hundreds of other terrorists and some innocents have sat awaiting a trial.
The National Defense Authorization Act of 2012 (NDAA) came with some new provisions that allow not only for indefinite detention of civilians without a trial but it also gave the President the authority to assassinate American citizens. The only trial they would get is whether or not the drone is functioning properly. Yes you read that right, American citizens can be assassinated by their own government. Predictably this caused a bit of a stir and so Obama stated that his administration would never use those powers but what happens after he leaves? Your guess is as good as mine.
So if the President can throw the judicial branch out the window in the name of national security then why can’t we just kill the mastermind of 9/11? Why does he get a trial when an American potentially would not? Is it because he is of Pakistani origin and we fear rocking the boat? Here is a list of what Mohammed had been up to before he was caught.
- Was a member of Osama bin Laden’s terrorist group al-Qaeda organization.
- The 9/11 Commission Report alleges that he was “the principal architect of the 9/11 attacks.”
- He is also alleged to have confessed to a role in many of the most significant terrorist plots over the last twenty years, including the World Trade Center 1993 bombings, the Operation Bojinka plot, an aborted 2002 attack on the U.S. Bank Tower in Los Angeles, the Bali nightclub bombings, the failed bombing of American Airlines Flight 63, the Millennium Plot, and the murder of Daniel Pearl.
- He confessed to being the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks.
He has been charged with war crimes, thousands of murders and faces the death penalty. It’s almost a sure thing that he will be executed but until that can happen he gets to continue to disrupt the trial and ignore the military judge. It is a dog and pony show where we are trying to get “justice” where the only justice is revenge. He deserves a military funeral and by that I mean a firing squad. A full 21 gun salute with live ammo. He is currently getting better treatment than that of a possible American being vaporized by his own government. He at least is getting a trial whereas an American can be held forever without one. We’ve let many leave GTMO without a trial only for them to go back to their terrorist ways. Are we actually risking putting this guy back into the world? Why is it the United States is now affording more rights to self confessed terrorists than they would their own citizens accused of similar crimes? Is this what the American way has boiled down to? Frankly I’m sick to my stomach.
He attended Chowan College and completed a degree in mechanical engineering at North Carolina Agricultural and Technical State University in 1986. The following year he went to Afghanistan, where he and his brothers (Zahed, Abed, and Aref) fought against the Soviet Union during the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. (Some sources claim that Khalid was fighting in Afghanistan before he moved to the United States.) There, he was introduced to Abdul Rasul Sayyaf, of the Islamic Union Party. The 9/11 Commission Report notes on page 149 that “Sayyaf part of the Afghan Northern Alliance”.
The 9/11 Commission Report also notes that, “By his own account, KSM’s animus toward the United States stemmed not from his experiences there as a student, but rather from his violent disagreement with U.S. foreign policy favoring Israel.”
After the US Department of Justice advised that the Guantanamo Bay detention camp could be considered outside U.S. legal jurisdiction, the first twenty captives arrived at Guantanamo on January 11, 2002. After the Bush administration asserted that detainees were not entitled to any of the protections of the Geneva Conventions, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld on June 29, 2006, that they were entitled to the minimal protections listed under Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions. Following this, on July 7, 2006, the Department of Defense issued an internal memo stating that prisoners would in the future be entitled to protection under Common Article 3.
The National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2012 was signed into United States law on December 31, 2011, by President Barack Obama.
The Act authorizes $662 billion in funding, among other things “for the defense of the United States and its interests abroad.” In a signing statement, President Obama described the Act as addressing national security programs, Department of Defense health care costs, counter-terrorism within the U.S. and abroad, and military modernization. The Act also imposes new economic sanctions against Iran (section 1045), commissions reviews of the military capabilities of countries such as Iran, China, and Russia, and refocuses the strategic goals of NATO towards energy security.
The most controversial provisions to receive wide attention are contained in Title X, Subtitle D, entitled “Counter-Terrorism.” In particular, sub-sections 1021 and 1022, which deal with detention of persons the government suspects of involvement in terrorism, have generated controversy as to their legal meaning and their potential implications for abuse of Presidential authority. Although the White House and Senate sponsors maintain that the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) already grants presidential authority for indefinite detention, the Act states that Congress “affirms” this authority and makes specific provisions as to the exercise of that authority. The detention provisions of the Act have received critical attention by, among others, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), the Bill of Rights Defense Committee, and some media sources which are concerned about the scope of the President’s authority, including contentions that those whom they claim may be held indefinitely could include U.S. citizens arrested on American soil, including arrests by members of the Armed Forces. Source: Wikipedia