KSM and the Flaw of International Law
Posted by Greg R Lawson at 11/17/2009 1:08 PM 
Categories: Law Terrorism 9/11
Tags: Law Terrorism 9/11
Categories: Law Terrorism 9/11
Tags: Law Terrorism 9/11
A great piece at Stratfor outlines the flaws in contemporary international law as it relates to dealing with terrorism. Its obviously a timely piece given the controversy surrounding Attorney General Eric Holder's decision to try the self proclaimed mastermind of 9/11, Khalid Sheik Mohammed (KSM), in civilian court in New York.
This is a very poor decision. As Stratfor outlines, international law is essesntially silent on dealing with "non-uniformed" combatants and leaves their prosecution (or other treatment) to the individual states. Holder's decision may well either compromise intelligence assets or will be so weak that it could well lend itself to an acquittal. Its a no win proposition politically. If Mohammed is convicted, those on the radical left will criticize much of what was done to him while in Guantanamo. If he is, shocking though it may seem, acquitted, how do you deal with that? You can't simply let him go and if you don't let him go, you will have destroyed any tint of legality by not freeing an "acquitted" man. The military tribunal option, imperfect as it may have been to legal purists, was the best alternative.
However, an even larger question than KSM himself is what does all this mean for the amorphous concept many like to think of as "international law?" On this, Stratfor's point at the end of the article sums up my view entirely:
"International law has clung to a model of law governing a very different type of warfare despite new realities. International law must therefore either reaffirm the doctrine that combatants who do not distinguish themselves from noncombatants are not due the protections of international law, or it must clearly define what those protections are. Otherwise, international law discredits itself."
At the moment, it is largely discredited. Can it do better? Yes, but it will take will power and foresight. Who is ready for that?
This is a very poor decision. As Stratfor outlines, international law is essesntially silent on dealing with "non-uniformed" combatants and leaves their prosecution (or other treatment) to the individual states. Holder's decision may well either compromise intelligence assets or will be so weak that it could well lend itself to an acquittal. Its a no win proposition politically. If Mohammed is convicted, those on the radical left will criticize much of what was done to him while in Guantanamo. If he is, shocking though it may seem, acquitted, how do you deal with that? You can't simply let him go and if you don't let him go, you will have destroyed any tint of legality by not freeing an "acquitted" man. The military tribunal option, imperfect as it may have been to legal purists, was the best alternative.
However, an even larger question than KSM himself is what does all this mean for the amorphous concept many like to think of as "international law?" On this, Stratfor's point at the end of the article sums up my view entirely:
"International law has clung to a model of law governing a very different type of warfare despite new realities. International law must therefore either reaffirm the doctrine that combatants who do not distinguish themselves from noncombatants are not due the protections of international law, or it must clearly define what those protections are. Otherwise, international law discredits itself."
At the moment, it is largely discredited. Can it do better? Yes, but it will take will power and foresight. Who is ready for that?
Or perhaps we will hear revelations and explanations that our controlled mass media is not telling us like KSM's affiliation with the CIA dating back to the Bosnian war working with Atta through Abdullah Bin Ladins Benevolence Fund which he and Atta worked through in the US up to 9/11, connections to the SDA and the Bosnian government, if there is any substantial connections between KSM and OBL and if it even exists member of a network called Al Qaeda, the US dealings with the Taliban regime and his connections to it, his affiliation with Qatari government when he was a paid employee after the Bosnian war, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, a proper time line of events and contacts involving KSM leading up to 9/11, etc.
And what about the extensive Bosnian connection to 9/11 why is that not ever mentioned in the mass media?
This type of evidence will only be revealed to the public domain and would clarify a lot of unanswered question’s about 9/11.
In a case like this on this scale and complexity of 9/11 there would be substantial physical and financial evidence to convict KSM which the 9/11 attacks.
Interrogation under stress in Guantanamo as sole evidence is not sound reliable evidence as was the case in the run up to war which Iraq were detainees under interrogation under pressure gave false evidence connecting Saddam to Al Qaeda which was used as evidence in the case against Iraq.
It is an absolutely right decision to bring this to a public court to stand trail.
Reply to this
I will admit that I am unaware of the "Bosnian" connection you are talking about. However, if any or even all of these things are true, I am not certain this fundamentally changes the issue. KSM is the self confessed mastermind of 9/11, shows no remorse, and seems to want to use this opportunity to put on a performance for media consumption. This opportunity should, under all circumstances, be denied.
As it relates to your points, even if any truth to them, should we be surprised that we may have had CIA relations with someone who proceeded to turn on the United States for their own reasons? While many criticize the notion of the "enemy of my enemy is my friend" concept, it has always been thus. Policy needs of a given moment often have longer-term implications that are not seen at the time. Is this "blowback?" Maybe, but life is imperfect and we can't always know the motivations of everyone.
If FDR and Churchill could deal with Stalin (as was necessary), I don't see why we would be surprised that our government still has unsavory relations in the world of intelligence, counter-intelligence, and subterranean conflict that flies below the radar of public knowledge. In fact, I would argue, that some of these very issues, whether true or not should remain firmly ensconced within the shadows. The world is too complex, our interests too broad, and the interaction of these factors often too messy to be usefully ripped out into the open. When that happens, its too easy for those that are self righteous (and usually not responsible for any serious decision making) to cast stones while valuable interests are threatened.
Those that want moral perfectibility in policy will find themselves in a constant state of disappointment.
Reply to this
@Greg R Lawson
I am surprised you don't know about Bosnia and there connection to international terrorism under the Islamist regime of Alija Izetbegovic (Atta and KSM were granted Bosnian citizenship) became the centre and base for international Islamic terrorism during the 90's. Every major terrorism expert has written and referenced this. In fact every major terror attack in Europe and the US has a Bosnia-Chechen connection including 9/11.
I will do a thread on it on Sublime Oblivion forum referencing main stream sources.
Has Statfor not covered this?
I suggest you read Paul Murphy's book Wolves of Islam Russia and the Faces of Chechen Terrorism it fills in a lot information including banking connections to 9/11 and Chechen connections to Afghanistan-Taliban and Europe and ethnicity of the leadership of these Islamic groups Zarqawi, Hafs (Jordanian) Saudis, etc and the connection that binds them and some of the CNN footage of videos of the camps in context. It is a slice of time as it was published in early 2005 and does not cover Beslan apart from a brief mention by the author of it in the inside sleeve but it does have a lot of good information.
Reply to this