| Submit your comments on this article | ||
| Home Front: WoT | ||
| Bin Laden's longtime friend pleads guilty to terror charges | ||
| 2010-07-07 | ||
| A LONGTIME associate of Osama bin Laden has pleaded guilty to conspiracy and providing material support to a terrorist organisation, at a military commission in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Sudanese national Ibrahim al Qosi, who turned 50 this month, is alleged to have been a supporter of bin Laden since meeting him in the Sudan in the early 1990s and ultimately followed the al Qaeda leader to Afghanistan. Court documents allege that al Qosi served a number of roles for his longtime friend: from cook, to driver, to accountant and that he allegedly facilitated bin Laden's escape from Tora Bora in eastern Afghanistan in late 2001. The court was engaged in a process known as "providence inquiry" - a lengthy question and answer session between the military judge and al Qosi. The judge must be satisfied that al Qosi is pleading guilty freely, he understands fully the charges he is admitting to, and there is evidence to support his guilty plea.
Only once the judge and al Qosi run through a six-page stipulation of fact, which includes 26 separate paragraphs outlining his relationship to al Qaeda, would his pleas be accepted. Once the hearing is finished, and if the guilty pleas were accepted by the judge, it would be the first conviction of President Obama's military commissions. It would only be the second guilty plea of the entire commission process under this administration and the previous administration.
| ||
| Posted by:tipper |
| #4 The only problem is they aren't part of country with a standard uniform or military. The Obama Campaign's official position was that these people should be accorded the same rights and priveliges that uniform-wearing POW's from a regular military have. Well, one of those rights is, you can't be tried for being in the other army and peeling potatoes or driving someone around. As far as I know, there is no distinct legal status for _enemy combatants_. There are simply POW's, which do have rights, and _unlawful combatants_, who have rights _until they are found guilty of being unlawful combatants in a trial_. If you're not going to try them for being an unlawful combatant, I'm unsure there's anything you can try them for. The administration are hypocrites in this matter. |
| Posted by: Thing From Snowy Mountain 2010-07-07 20:53 |
| #3 @#1 The only problem is they aren't part of country with a standard uniform or military. They aren't really part of a military and yet aren't civilians. They are terrorists or enemy combatants. Also, I don't think they signed, recognize or give a rat's behind about the Geneva conventions. The odd thing is, they almost opposite of a UN force. After all, they are a conglomeration of many countries fighting to destroy any thing that isn't like them or adhere to their way of life. Their charter is the Qu'ran and wage jihad. They only thing I can see is to treat them as terrorists. They aren't POW's or Spies or civilians. |
| Posted by: miscellaneous 2010-07-07 18:17 |
| #2 Maybe he will plea bargain it down to participating in a man caused disaster. |
| Posted by: Muggsy Glink 2010-07-07 18:11 |
| #1 SO..... isn't it against the Geneva Convention to try enemy POW's for merely being at war with your country? It seems that certain administrations that said they were going to follow international norms were kidding us at the time. |
| Posted by: Thing From Snowy Mountain 2010-07-07 18:03 |