Yemenis to die for USS Cole blast

[Darranar]

A Yemeni judge has sentenced two men, including one held in US custody, to death for orchestrating the 2000 bombing of the USS Cole.

Four others were sentenced on Wednesday to prison terms ranging from five to 10 years.

Jamal al-Badawi, a 35-year-old Yemeni, and Saudi-born Abd Al-Rahim al-Nashiri were both sentenced to death for plotting, preparing and involvement in the bombing.

The attack, which was blamed on Usama bin Ladin's al-Qaida network, killed 17 American sailors as their destroyer refuelled in the southern Yemeni port of Aden.

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/BD47BCAE-6431-4F38-A07B-7B6CFE54DFCB.htm

[Heyo]

1. Yeah...

... they use a firing squad in Yemen, too.

Good riddance.

Heyo

[Djinn]

2. which makes you wonder why the US needed

to resort to assasination in Yemen when it seems they're quite capable of punishing the guilty themselves

[geek tragedy]

5. If they can get their hands on the guys.

The guys they hit in the desert weren't in a position where they could be arrested. It was a choice of killing them or letting them escape.

[Djinn]

6. nothing justifies assasination in my view

it what DIFFERENTIATES us from terrorists

[geek tragedy]

9. It's not assassination to kill people who are trying to kill you.

If they take up arms, they are a perfectly legitimate target.

[Aidoneus]

10. By that logic, then so are the assassins and the system that backs them

These little rules made up on the fly go both ways, you know. That is why the 'logic' behind such must be considered before speaking.

[geek tragedy]

12. AQ is a private organization.

The fundamental assumption of any legal order is that states have a monopoly on legal violence.

The United States government has a legal right to exist, and to commit acts of violence to defend its existence.

AQ has neither.

There is an asymmetry of rights. States get to do things that private terrorist organizations don't get to do.


Al Qaeda members have all of the legal rights of Charles Manson. They don't get to play by the same rules as the US government.

[Djinn]

17. interesting theory

it's also what Al Qaeda use as justification for killing Americans, if it's good for us it's good for everyone else too.

PERSONALLY self defence is OK - when a nation (with the biggest military in the world) kills individuals that becomes a little hazy.

[geek tragedy]

20. Good for other states, yes. Not good for AQ.

AQ has no legal right to kill anyone, ever. None. It is a criminal conspiracy. It has no rights--even to exist.

A state and a criminal terrorist organization have vastly different rights when it comes to the use of force.

Legally, that is. I would also say so morally, but I'm not going to get into that debate.

[Djinn]

21. even without getting into the morality of it

because as I don't actually beleive that states have the moral right to resort to force either we'll clearly never agree there, BUT given the shenanigans involved in Bush's "election" does the US really have that right under the current admin?

If a nation decides to vote for an "al qaeda" party en masse would you be OK with attacks in the US and elsewhere to kill US citizens on the grounds that you've been attacking them for some time?

Would Cuban attacks on the US after the Bay of Pigs been OK and justifiable?

[geek tragedy]

24. You're dealing with absurd hypotheticals.

The US government has the legal obligation to protect the safety of its citizens. That means it has the legal right to take acts, including armed action, to defend its people.

That's Political Science 101. Also included in that course is the principle that the state should have a monopoly on violence. The same principles that make Charlie Manson a criminal make AQ a criminal organization.

I'm talking about armed action as prevention, not revenge.

The guy the US capped in the Yemeni desert was capped because he was engaged in an ongoing criminal conspiracy to kill Americans. It was an act of prevention. He was an active participant in an ongoing campaign of murder.

Had he retired to a farm and withdrawn from AQ, killing him would have been murder. But he didn't and this wasn't.

As far as your "voting for an AQ party" theoretical, it is junk. If they vote for a radical anti-American party, that party has the rights and obligations of a state. If that state doesn't kill Americans or threaten to do so, then in theory it should not expect an attack from the US.

Of course, the US did attack Iraq, and the Iraqis may very well have been justified in attacking US troops staged in the area before the ground invasion.

But, an attack on US civilians for the express purpose of killing US civilians would never be legal.

[Aidoneus]

3. executing POWs is usually considered a crime

not a praiseworthy act.. odd.

[geek tragedy]

4. If we were talking about POW's, you'd have half a point.

But they're not.

Assuming, arguendo, that they are POW's, they can still be convicted of criminal offenses.

Again, Al Qaeda operatives aren't POW's, so it's a moot point.

[Djinn]

7. and you have a seriously dodgy

administrations word for it that they were terrorists - not saying they weren't but I'm not going to take in on face value that just becasue the US says they were then they must be

[Aidoneus]

8. Not a moot point

openly declared war -- check.. proper military means, hostile military target in territory the target did not belong in, 100% military casualty rate -- check, check, check. That latter point is something that those USAF pilots regularly bombing houses in Iraq could never claim, so maybe they need a spot on the firing squads too for their crimes? Oh wait, that's different.

Do you know what the Cole was responsible for enforcing? Striking at that facilitator of mass murder was one of the few proper major operations "al-Qa`idah" has carried out (point of fact it was one Jaysh al-Islami fi Aden / "Islamic Army of Aden", but I suppose that's the moot point).

[Name removed]

11. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Aidoneus]

13. I see 4/4 from what you paste..

(on edits: several additions & revisions)

The Islamic Army of Aden set itself against both the US world empire and this entity's caretaker regime in Yemen (condition #1 & the base portion of #2). It was a formally announced armed organization striking at a hostile military target, one that was tasked with enforcing the genocidal sanctions against the Iraqi people, and also one that was far from its proper home territory. They profess allegiance to an authority that is indeed not recognized by the detaining power (condition #3).

That there are people left over from the blast to execute shows that there was a set of subordinates/command structure involved (2a). The matter of 2b is a tricky one, but the beard may count :shrug: ... 2c is indeed fulfilled in the course of the strike itself and probably in other displays. Analyze the facts of the event itself, and 2d seems hardly in question--indeed, this opposed to the majority of their other major operations, many of which were quite ghastly and misguided.

I didn't immediately catch it, but you apparently concede a point to me above:--
"...Assuming, arguendo, that they are POW's, they can still be convicted of criminal offenses..."
That may be, though I fail to see how the conditions qualify distinction for the offense as "criminal". And at any rate, executing POWs, a term I used not without careful consideration beforehand, is still frowned upon by the sort of quasilegal sophistry you drag out to make my case elsewhere. (I appreciate that, by the way, though that was not as you intended I'm sure)

As much as I am rooting for them?--(on edit: a phrase--"fuck you"--removed from this location for my own reasons: though you show me disrespect, I will show you disrespect in return by turning to ash the kindling you place before me)--I only speak honestly of the plain facts of this matter and not opinions based on anything aside from these facts. As it turns out (and surprise-surprise, I'm in a better position to speak on this than you are, so I would advise you to defer to me on such matters before blindly speaking on them yourself), in general I'm not too fond of the tendencies associated with or around "al-Qa`idah", but there are some exceptions that I consider on an individual basis.

[geek tragedy]

14. They are not the armed forces of a Party to the Geneva Conventions

Hence 1 does not apply. They obviously do not qualify for 2(b) or 2(c)--especially in this instance. Beards? And the AQ/AQ affiliated groups most certainly do not follow the laws of war.

They are not members of a regular armed forces. Hence 3 does not apply.

They have no legal protections, and their actions are properly considered as criminal per se.

Here's the full doc (I left two out because they obviously did not apply):

http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm

[Darranar]

15. It says "Party to the conflict", not "Party to the Geneva Conventions"...

so I think Aidoneus is probably right.

Their actions were criminal (from the perspective of Yemenite law), sure, but "fighting against the US" is part of being a soldier in that particular conflict, so executing them for it does seem to be a violation.

[geek tragedy]

16. They are not members of the Armed Forces

of a Party. That is not in dispute. Only states have "armed forces." They make provisions for people outside of the armed forces of a state. Also, Party is a term with a very specific meaning--it means a state who has signed the GC's. Otherwise, any group could organize violence and claim protection under the GC's.

The essential test is whether the individuals in question make an effort to distinguish themselves from the civilian population.

If they attempt to blend in with the civilian population, as did these perps, the GC's flat out do not apply to them.

If their actions were a violation of Yemeni law, that is the end of the inquiry.

There is no right to kill soldiers. According to the logic being displayed here, anyone organized group with a grudge may kill any soldiers they don't like without criminal penalty. Absurd.

[Djinn]

18. unfortunately that's exactly the theory YOU espouse

"It's not assassination to kill people who are trying to kill you.
If they take up arms, they are a perfectly legitimate target."

"Al Qaeda" are now the main target of a "war" the US has "taken up arms" they are therefore entitled to "assasinate" those "trying to kill them"

US forces getting killed in Iraq? completely legitimate according to this theory

[geek tragedy]

19. The US forces are a legitimate target for a guerilla resistance movement.

At least for Iraqis. I'm obviously not rooting for them to do so, but an organized resistance is legal--and a far cry from the criminal conspiracy that is AQ.

Al-Qaeda is not allowed to defend itself any more than a child molestor is allowed to shoot police trying to arrest him.

Nations have a right to defend their citizens. Terrorist NGO's have no such rights.

The US, Russia, Japan, India, Guatemala, Cuba, and Egypt all get to play by a set of rules that AQ does not get to play by. AQ has a legal obligation to disarm and disband. If they don't do so, it's open season on them. The Japanese police, US navy, Australian army, and Cuban air force have no such obligation, and forfeit no rights by existing and arming themselves.

[Djinn]

22. so any "state"

regardless of how legitimate and how democratic gets to play by these special rules?

Also given that it's OK to kill those who are killing you or threatening to do so - why wouldn't you "root for" the Iraqi guerilla's? Surely they are under more direct threat (and certainly a more credible threat) than any American was from "Al Qaeda"

[geek tragedy]

23. I'm not a traitor.

So, I'm not going to cheer for people killing American soldiers.

And I don't share your tinfoil attitude towards Al Qaeda (I believe they exist and that they killed 3000 people in my city). So, there's a fundamental disagreement which makes further discussion on that topic futile.

In response to your first question, states have legal rights. A state has the legal obligation to protect its citizens and the right to use force to that end.

Perhaps a state like Nazi Germany has no such rights, but that gets into metaphysical discussions regarding whether a profoundly evil state can have legal existence.

But AQ gets to play by these rules: Disarm, disband, or else.

[gottaB]

25. there is also the legal argument against the Nazis

The legality of the Bush regime is not certain. The legality of the invasion and occupation of Iraq is far from certain.

(I don't want our guys to be targetted either, but I'm not sure about their legal rights. I agree with you about Al Qaeda.)

[geek tragedy]

26. A big debate amongst legal philosophers is whether

a state can be so profoundly evil and immoral that its pronouncements cannot be described as law.

More precisely, the question is whether a grossly unjust and immoral law is really law at all.

[Djinn]

27. I think they exist

I just don't beleive they're the all encompassing bogie that they're made out to be, I just find it weird that after decades of pissy truck bombs all of a sudden they can pull off 9/11 (I'm sure they were involved some how but they absiolutely had help whether it was Saudi/Pakistani intelligence someone else I dunno - I have no solid theory I just don't swallow the offical story, to me it's just as tin-foily as any other story)

If Nazi Germany didn't have the moral right then neither does Bush - his government is illegitimate.

As for traitor/non traitor I tend to pick the side that I beleive is right, and while I don't know enough to know whether I support the insurgency I do know I can not and will not "support the troops" on this one, much like I wouldn't have supported Australian troops in Vietnam, much like we'd expect decent German's to have done in the face of the Nazi's.

"the question is whether a grossly unjust and immoral law is really law at all."

good to hear - can you pass on my congrats to David and Mamdouh when you bust them and hundredds of other detainees out of Gitmo.

[geek tragedy]

28. Habib should be set free immediately, and I support

Hicks's right to a fair and speedy trial.

[Djinn]

31. according to US and Australian law

at the time Hicks committed NO crime - training with foreign forces was not a crime (hence why he's not being charged for fighting in Kosovo and Kashmir) he was a dumb naive kid looking for adventure and a purpose and found it in a really really bad place. Christ only knows why he picked the bloody Taliban, but at the time he wasn't committing a crime - and this was AFTER the Afghanistan sanctions etc.

Even if you ignore the law at the time (retrospective legislation is as antithetical to democracy as assasination IMO) Hick's right to a speedy trial has already been abused - he was detained nearly three years ago now.

BTW you don't honestly beleive he CAN get a fair trial do you - you'd be one of the few outside the Bush admin who even pretends to beleive that

http://www.fairgofordavid.org/htmlfiles/media/nprorg14Sep04.htm

[geek tragedy]

33. To be honest, you know more about his case than I do.

But, this guy seems to show up with his Kalishnikov wherever there's a military jihad going on. I haven't evaluated the evidence and the charges, but it seems that there are two sides to this guy and his story that should be examined in a court.

Is a fair trial possible? I would say yes, so long as he opts for a judge trial instead of a jury trial. Federal judges will stand up the Chimperor, even if juries start baaahing like sheep.

[Djinn]

35. he doesn't have that option

he will be tried by a recently invented military commission - the rules that apply to normal court proceding and even to court martials don't apply. There are so many problems with these commissions it's hard to know where to start - the people deciding Hick's fate do not have to have any legal/court experience (only the presiding officer who's opinions are not binding), no appeals process, no independence from the executive arm of US government, hearsay accepted, information used in the prosecution does not need to be shared with the defence (even AT trial) etc etc

If his activities (though not illegal at the time) need to be examined by a court give him a criminal one like John Lindh received, the charges are almost identical.

(little off topic here I know)

[Aidoneus]

29. interesting isn't it?

the sort of statist idolatry, no better word to describe it, leaves open all manners of hypocrisy with such silly made-up rules.

[geek tragedy]

30. What definition of "law" should we use, your personal preference?

The law, as it exists, does not grant this guy POW protection. His act was a crime under the laws of Yemen, and he's going to pay the price. No controversy there. You can bitch about it, but your understanding of the legalities involved is grossly in error.

As far as your spurious "statist idolatry" argument, it is the foundation of civilization. Without it, Charlie Manson has as much of a right to kill as the state does in stopping him. States are accountable to their citizenry. The alternative is anarchy, chaos, and the war of all against all.

Private organizations of individuals may not grant themselves the right to kill. Period.

Seriously, most middle school kids get past this when they read Hobbes.

[Djinn]

32. I can't speak for Aidoneus

but for me I'm not opposed to the Yemeni's executing this bloke (atleast no more of a problem than I have with the US executing it's citizens who've committed capital crimes)

I have a problem with the US (or anyone else) assasinating someone - no trial, no defence, no process just bang.

[geek tragedy]

34. I don't agree with assassination as a matter or "justice" or vengeance.

The determining factor for me is whether the guy is actively engaged in hostilities.

It is always preferable to capture guys like this, btw, for intelligence purposes.