Sunday, June 28, 2009

Gitmo Backpeddle

Apparently Friday's WaPo story about Obama's consideration of indefinite detention of Gitmo detainees was just a 'draft'. Now they are saying KSM and a few others (some of the main pool?) might actually be tried in US courts. We can all believe that when seen, but they seemed to be more specific on one who won't be tried here:
Walid bin Attash, accused of being involved in the 2000 bombing of the USS Cole, could be among those held indefinitely, a senior official told the newspaper.
Here's one jaded view as to why they might exclude bin Attash, but perhaps it's also something to do with this:
Following his uncle's arrest in Rawalpindi on March 1 2003, the 25-year old al-Baluchi spent the next two months with Walid bin 'Attash, until the pair were arrested on April 29 along with a man named Abu Ammar in Karachi on suspicion of a plot to bomb the American embassy.[4][1] al-Baluchi had a copy of a letter to Osama bin Laden from Saudi scholars in his pocket, a computer disk containing a draft of a letter to bin Laden, two images of the September 11 attacks, and a perfume bottle containing low-concentration cyanide used to bleach and perfume clothes.[2] al-Baluchi was also accused of discussing the possibility of exporting explosives to the United States through textile companies, but claims to have no knowledge of what conversation is being referenced.
Or this:
Under interrogation following his capture, al-Qaeda leader Khallad bin Attash will say that after the bombing of the USS Cole (see October 12, 2000), Iran makes a concerted effort to strengthen relations with al-Qaeda. However, Iran is rebuffed because Osama bin Laden does not want to alienate his supporters in Saudi Arabia, which has poor relations with Iran. Nevertheless, Iranian officials are apparently willing to assist travel by al-Qaeda members through Iran, on their way to and from Afghanistan, by not placing telltale immigration stamps in their passports. Such arrangements are particularly beneficial to Saudi members of al-Qaeda.
Emphasis added to point out the mention of two states, coming from a former bin Laden aide in an organization the 9/11 commission called "rootless and stateless". But as they say, info obtained through 'torture' isn't always reliable.

BUT WHA.... 6/29/09

Will any of the intrepids ask Gibbs what happened to the last plan on Gitmo?

3 comments:

Debbie said...

I'm all for letting the detainees plead guilty and get the death penalty. Trial balloon huh, your right. They have no idea what to do.

Of course these days the death penalty doesn't really mean death, it just means the beginning of years and years of appeals.

Debbie Hamilton
Right Truth

Mustang said...

We should wonder if the push for a trial is really an effort to gain an acquittal. That way, everyone of the left can smirk and mutter into the microphone at MSNBC, "I told you so."

A.C. McCloud said...

Debbie's right--assuming KSM were to get convicted in a US court (which is assuming a lot) he'd end up being on death row forever. That would not leave the 9/11 families with formal closure while also upping the chances of a reprisal attack designed to free him--say taking over a grade school for hostages, etc. I think the quick hanging might be better, but even that sets up a martyr scenario.

As to Mustang's comment, I agree. There are a lot of lefties who would use an acquittal to bash Cheney/Bush or even suggest it's more reason they should be on trial, not the terrorists. A public trial could also evoke sympathy for AQ/Palestinian causes with proper media play (I doubt the media would handle it the same way they did the Ramzi Yousef trial, back when terrorism was non-partisan).

If Obama is bringing these guys into US courts he must have another subterfuge play on the drawing board. Nothing is as it seems in this administration.