Ahmed Abu Khattala captured, charged criminally, mirandized.

[Streck-Fu]

Good way to shut him up.....

Two questions, though....
Why would the FBI HRT be operating outside the US where Delta is available? I suspect the answer is in the fact he is charged as a criminal not terrorist.

Why would the raid be needed or even a big deal now when this guy was lounging poolside at luxury hotels a month after POTUS promised to hunt down all the perps? I suspect the tail is wagging the dog. "How does this affect the B-3 bomber?" "There is no B-3 bomber.").

LINK

“It’s important for us to send a message to the world that when Americans are attacked, no matter how long it takes, we will find those responsible, and we will bring them to justice,” Obama said.

Abu Khattala’s capture was a significant breakthrough for the administration in a case that has dragged on for nearly two years since Obama promised shortly after the attacks that the perpetrators would be brought to justice.

NYT's from October '12: LINK

Witnesses and the authorities have called Ahmed Abu Khattala one of the ringleaders of the Sept. 11 attack on the American diplomatic mission here. But just days after President Obama reasserted his vow to bring those responsible to justice, Mr. Abu Khattala spent two leisurely hours on Thursday evening at a crowded luxury hotel, sipping a strawberry frappe on a patio and scoffing at the threats coming from the American and Libyan governments.

[pcfixer]

Another question begs to be answered.

Why did this ONE arrest take 21 some months after the Benghazi attack?

“With this operation, the United States has once again demonstrated that we will do whatever it takes to see that justice is done when people harm Americans,” Obama said in a written statement. “We will continue our efforts to bring to justice those who were responsible for the Benghazi attacks.”

http://news.yahoo.com/u-s--captures-...160435076.html

[(1VB)compforce]

A bigger question is "Why are we charging him with a crime rather than treating him as an enemy combatant?"

By treating him as a criminal and mirandizing him, we treat him as an American citizen, with all the constitutional protections afforded to any one of us. That just pisses me off. If they were serious about it, he'd be headed to Gitmo...oh, but wait, that would be going in the wrong direction for the current administration's politics.

[LarryW]

'Course, IF he's convicted his case will be heard thru the SCOTUS. Wonder how long that will take. (Expect to see his name on the Pardon List in 2015.)

[Remington Raidr]

Airtight case. Riiiiight. Did we also snap up some people to testify against him? No? Good luck with Beyond a Reasonable Doubt.

I think the consistent reason in this case is Barry finally read about him in the newspapers. That's how he finds out about everything, doncha know.

[Box]

...had to do something to draw some media attention off of iraq

[Peregrino]

Sorry - this is political theater. In my eyes AAK is an enemy combatant, plain and simple. The administration will have a very hard time convincing me that charging him under US law for the deaths and destruction of legitimate military targets is anything other than pure unadulterated bullshit. The only crimes I see is Hillary and company guilty of dereliction of duty and perjury. If anyone should be held responsible and tried for Benghazi that's where we need to start. Four dead Americans deserve better than a show trial of a scapegoat so it can all be swept under the rug and this corrupt, incompetent administration can say "justice has been served".

[MtnGoat]

Originally Posted by Peregrino

Sorry - this is political theater. In my eyes AAK is an enemy combatant, plain and simple. The administration will have a very hard time convincing me that charging him under US law for the deaths and destruction of legitimate military targets is anything other than pure unadulterated bullshit. The only crimes I see is Hillary and company guilty of dereliction of duty and perjury. If anyone should be held responsible and tried for Benghazi that's where we need to start. Four dead Americans deserve better than a show trial of a scapegoat so it can all be swept under the rug and this corrupt, incompetent administration can say "justice has been served".

Well said P, this administration will play this out along with that POS.

[BoyScout]

I wonder where we'll find the intelligence gleamed from the trial.

[Richard]

I’m torn over this issue.

I believe in the “rule of law.”

I worry about the last decade’s propensity to readily (too readily IMO) advocate a military solution to the many problems associated with the decade’s so-called GWOT focus.

I am for calling these clowns “criminals” vice “combatants” and prosecuting them as such – “combatants” plays into their PSYOP game, not ours.

I’m torn over this issue.

Richard

[craigepo]

Originally Posted by Richard

I’m torn over this issue.

I believe in the “rule of law.”

I worry about the last decade’s propensity to readily (too readily IMO) advocate a military solution to the many problems associated with the decade’s so-called GWOT focus.

I am for calling these clowns “criminals” vice “combatants” and prosecuting them as such – “combatants” plays into their PSYOP game, not ours.

I’m torn over this issue.

Richard

I understand where you're coming from. Here is my personal take:

This guy is not an American citizen, and was apprehended outside of U.S. soil. So, he is not entitled to the rights of an American citizen or a person caught inside the U.S.

As he was captured, and not killed, he is probably to be afforded some legal process (not the full-blown American due process, but some type of hearing). Therefore, the issue becomes which specific law we must follow when dealing with him.

The Geneva Convention essentially ratified many old rule of war practices. An issue is whether this guy is to be treated as a soldier during a time of war, a non-uniformed dude in a time of war, or other. The Geneva Convention is pretty clear on the first two. The "other", a non-uniformed guy killing people in a non-war zone, is not so clear. (An example: What would happen to a U.S. spy if he were caught in Russia, having killed a Russian citizen, during the Cold War? Moreover, this guy is not even a spy.)

My limited historical standing is that a person in this situation has been, in most civilized nations, been afforded a cursory hearing and a quick execution. I would argue that if we (the United States) give him any more rights than this, it is nothing more than gratuitous process for political gain. But I am open to other's opinions.

[PSM]

Giving a non-citizen Miranda Rights sets precedence. Plus, they gave him the alibi that they want him to use: "It was that blasphemous video!" But, hey, what difference, at this point, does it make?

Pat

[Richard]

Originally Posted by PSM

Giving a non-citizen Miranda Rights sets precedence. Plus, they gave him the alibi that they want him to use: "It was that blasphemous video!" But, hey, what difference, at this point, does it make?

Pat

After the Supreme Court decision set aside Miranda's initial conviction, the state of Arizona retried him. At the second trial, with his confession excluded from evidence, he was again convicted.

Richard

[PSM]

Originally Posted by Richard

After the Supreme Court decision set aside Miranda's initial conviction, the state of Arizona retried him. At the second trial, with his confession excluded from evidence, he was again convicted.

Richard

But, he was an American citizen and covered by the Constitution. AAk, isn't and should not be afforded the protection of it.

BTW, Miranda was killed by an illegal alien.

Pat

[Peregrino]

I encourage an extended discussion on his status. What I ask the skeptics to consider is the fact that we are working to re-focus a UW capability/mindset within SF. Given that (I believe) the Westphalian state is an artificial construct that the 3rd World largely ignores and that our definitions of a lawful combatant are based on Westphalian principles that are not recognized in places where we expect to be operating for the foreseeable future we jeopardize/handicap our Soldiers unnecessarily by denying combatant status to individuals who are not technically terrorists. We invite a slippery slope if we prosecute combatants for simple "acts of war". What's good for the goose is good for the gander. If employed by some future administration in a GW role that is "unpopular" with the international community, we subject our soldiers to arrest and prosecution as "unlawful combatants". Why does everyone think we've been so "considerate" of Gitmo prisoners and why is there now so much discussion/consternation about long term solutions following our withdrawal from OEF? How is AAK different from any of them? Bottom line - Treating members of armed insurgent groups as criminals exposes SF Soldiers to similar risks from "International Tribunals" who may have cause to oppose US foreign policy. (No I'm not talking about Al Qaeda, et. al. - we all understand the risks if captured by them - the threat is the ICC; how many trust the current administration to intervene on their behalf if imprisoned in Belgium?) Besides - outside narrow self-interest do we (the US) have the right to impose our law wherever, and just because, we choose to commit forces?