Status Hearing: Khalid Sheikh Mohammed

Ref:21-25

Ref Exaggerated claims.

* * *

The United States government is missing a big opportunity. If you put aside the images of destruction, and focus only on the laws of war, you'll see the prisoner's statement is an extension of the laws of war.

They view their struggle as part of a larger war against what they view is illegal US American action. The issue is not whether we agree or disagree; the issue is whether the US government is willing to accept, as did the British, that there is no need to fight. There can be peace and a common solution.

The problems link with the US and Israeli abuse of power. Israel has been given too many excuses on the back of the Holocaust, and has not been disciplined as required under international standards. War is the only option for honorable people when all other options prove fruitless in defending one's land, rights, and lives.

The US has no basis to impose a standards mandating compliance with injustice, but arguing for justice.

Rather than execute the Taliban and AlQueda fighters, why not discuss with them what should be done to resolve these issues. This is not a reward for violence; it is accepting that the US may be doing something to contribute to the problem.

This does not mean that there is a reward for illegal activity; but the US aggression is not precedent for calling all other responses to that aggression as illegal. The problem with the American government is that its lawyers and civilian leaders are not looking at their opponents as having legitimate military objectives; they incorrectly view them as subhuman. The conclusion is flawed; and the basis for policy is reckless.

The US has the answers within its prisons: It need only listen to the prisoners and forge a common solution. It is possible. There is no need for the US to reach out to the disaffected; it need only reach out to the fighters it has detained.

Turn the situation on its head: If the American continent had valuable resources and other nations attempted to invade, or impose their values on Americans, Americans would lash out. Just as the US opposed the 9-11 attacks, so too is the Middle East resisting.

The US, in lashing out, but abusing power, after 9-11, well illustrated the US weakness which the Middle Easterners fight.

* * *

The way forward is to involve the locals in the development issues; and encourage the locals to be specific with their goals; then work with them to distribute the oil profits from their lands so they can reach their goals.

The resources are theirs. They need to be involved with the decisions; and they need to see the benefits of the resources from their land.

They are emboldened not because they hate America, but because they dare to stand up to what America hatefully does: Abuses power.

We may not agree with their methods, but it is lawful under the laws of war for people to stand up for themselves. The US may declare a war over, but when war was never declared, the war cannot lawfully end or start.

This is not an issue of politics or the law, but combat. Their way of war is not different than America’s: The use of all options to win.

Their errors, as with the Americans:

___ Indiscriminate targeting against civilians

It may be violence, but it is lawful under the laws of war for the enemy to retaliate against America, especially when Americans refuse to discuss the issues or comply with local laws, at home and abroad.

America's problem is that it is not listening to the enemy: either its words or its message in combat: They resist not because of a problem, but because they dare to oppose that which Congress refuses to end, regulate, and resolve.

Americans, rather than discussing an issue, would rather be defeated in open combat. If America really wants to "win the war on Terror", the way forward is to make it clear: We are willing to listen and talk with the leadership of those we fight not because we agree with them, but because we believe we can reach a common solution with those who have well shown they are formidable in standing up for what they believe.

Just as the US leadership left some of the Nazi connected leaders in power in Germany after WWII, and as the US failed to do in Iraq after the 2003 invasion, it would be appropriate to encourage the leadership of the Taliban to use their energies to provide the leadership for what they hope to implement.

War does not mean that the enemy has to be destroyed; it can be the means to identify the leadership who can inspire others to follow. America knows the enemy and it leadership by reputation only; the way forward is to know them as leaders who can work with America if America is willing to accept there are new solutions.

AlQueda is willing to listen; the US is not. The Leadership of the insurgency in Afghanistan, Somalia, and Iraq are willing to reason if they are respected for who they are: Warriors. The US should let the warriors lead, especially when the American warriors have not been supported by this President to resolve these issues.

The authorization to use force does not mean that authorization must be used; or that the legal community in the US has free reign to wage illegal warfare. The US Attorney Firings is evidence that the DoJ and White House counsel staff will lie and deceive; there should be no doubt why ALQueda, the Iraqi insurgency, foreign fighters in Somalia, or the resistance in Afghanistan is growing.

America's lawyers have shown themselves to be inept at waging war; and they've proven themselves incompetent at waging peace. For that reason alone they should be put under investigation and be disbarred: They are incapable of prudent discussion, compliance with standards, or doing what they should to assert the US Constitution.

The issue is not whether we agree or disagree; the issue is whether we can agree that warriors who are leaders can inspire people to do peaceful things, or rally for war. America chooses to rally for a war it cannot win; and distracts attention from a failed legal community who will not protect what has been won: The US Constitution.

* * *

Levee En Masse

When the US speedily invades, the locals are not required to carry their arms openly or wear uniforms. The principle of levee en masse means when locals in Afghanistan and Pakistan took up arms, they are lawfully allowed to resist without wearing uniforms. The US cannot invade and expect the locals -- engaged in an internal dispute -- to meet international demands.

* * *

Prisoner does not appear to understand Tribunal statements. The responses aren't tracking back to the issues. Need to get the translators involved more; and slow the proceedings down. Legal counsel needs to be in a position to provide an explanation; and then the translator needs to provide some examples in plain-Arabic. Defendant doesn't appear to grasp what the Tribunal has done.

15 of 26 Other prisoners of war were not related to Taliban, but being detained 6 years after capture. Detention is a form of punishment.

18-19 of 26 Long list of alleged activities, and NSA can't find him.

___ How did all this activity occur, but US intelligence did not combine this at DSP level in NSC?