Ali Mussa Daqduq, Hezbollah Leader, May Get Military Trial In U.S.

[High_Gravity]

Ali Mussa Daqduq, Hezbollah Leader, May Get Military Trial In U.S.

WASHINGTON — The Obama administration is considering a military trial in the United States for a Hezbollah commander now detained in Iraq, U.S. counterterrorism officials said, previewing a potential prosecution strategy that has failed before but may offer a solution to a difficult legal problem for the government.

While the U.S. hasn't made a decision, officials said a tribunal at a U.S. military base may be the best way to deal with Ali Mussa Daqduq, who was captured in Iraq in 2007. He has been linked to the Iranian government and a brazen raid in which four American soldiers were abducted and killed in the Iraqi holy city of Karbala in 2007.

No military commission has been held on U.S. soil since the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. President George W. Bush tried holding a few suspected terrorists at military bases inside the U.S., but each detainee ultimately was released or transferred to civilian courts.

President Barack Obama has said that, because of changes to the military commissions that give prisoners more rights, he supports them as an option in the fight against terrorism. Hezbollah is an Iranian-backed Lebanese militant group that the U.S. has branded a terrorist organization.

But a tribunal for Daqduq probably would draw criticism from both liberals, who say a civilian court should be used, and conservatives, who don't want suspected terrorists brought to the U.S. regardless of the venue.

The officials who discussed the deliberations spoke on condition of anonymity because no decision has been made.

Obama's counterterrorism adviser, John Brennan, would not discuss the administration's plan for Daqduq. Asked in a recent interview whether the administration would generally consider holding military commissions in the U.S., he replied: "I have not heard anybody rule out such a thing."

The Bush administration had planned to prosecute Daqduq in an American civilian court. To prepare for that, intelligence officials questioned Daqduq, then had the FBI restart the interrogation from scratch so his answers would be admissible in court.

In a twist of political irony, however, that plan has been effectively scuttled because of opposition from Bush's own party. Republicans found a political toehold in criticizing Obama for wanting to bring terrorist suspects to the U.S. for trial.

A decision must be made soon. Daqduq is among a few of the remaining U.S. prisoners who, under a 2008 agreement between Washington and Baghdad, must be transferred to Iraqi custody by the end of 2011. U.S. officials fear that if he is turned over to Iraq, he will simply walk free.

Congressional Republicans have said Daqduq should be transferred to the military base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, for trial. Career lawyers in both administrations, however, say that's just about impossible.

The Supreme Court has upheld the legality of imprisoning al-Qaida suspects at Guantanamo Bay. But Daqduq is not part of or affiliated with al-Qaida. That means Daqduq could be prosecuted at Guantanamo, but probably not imprisoned there.

Hezbollah is a Shiite Muslim group; al-Qaida is a Sunni organization. The two have had a relationship of convenience at times but the Sept. 11 commission found no evidence that Hezbollah was aware of or involved in the planning for the attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon.

No Hezbollah agents have been prosecuted at Guantanamo.

Ali Mussa Daqduq, Hezbollah Leader, May Get Military Trial In U.S.

 

[RoccoR]

et al,

This will be interesting to see how this works.

While the US was there and targeted, since 2004, Iraq was under its own sovereignty. The US is certainly a victim, but the offense was committed in Iraq.

v/r
R

 

[High_Gravity]

et al,

This will be interesting to see how this works.

While the US was there and targeted, since 2004, Iraq was under its own sovereignty. The US is certainly a victim, but the offense was committed in Iraq.

v/r
R

I say put the clown in Guantanemo, I don't give a damn if he is Hezbollah and most of Guantanemo is Al Qaeda and they don't like each other, if we try this case in court he may walk, and if we just leave him with the Iraqis they will more than likely set him loose as well.

 

[freedombecki]

et al,

This will be interesting to see how this works.

While the US was there and targeted, since 2004, Iraq was under its own sovereignty. The US is certainly a victim, but the offense was committed in Iraq.

v/r
R

I say put the clown in Guantanemo, I don't give a damn if he is Hezbollah and most of Guantanemo is Al Qaeda and they don't like each other, if we try this case in court he may walk, and if we just leave him with the Iraqis they will more than likely set him loose as well.

Sounds good, High Gravity.

 

[RoccoR]

freedombecki, High_Gravity, et al,

We need to think about this carefully!

et al,

This will be interesting to see how this works.

While the US was there and targeted, since 2004, Iraq was under its own sovereignty. The US is certainly a victim, but the offense was committed in Iraq.

v/r
R

I say put the clown in Guantanemo, I don't give a damn if he is Hezbollah and most of Guantanemo is Al Qaeda and they don't like each other, if we try this case in court he may walk, and if we just leave him with the Iraqis they will more than likely set him loose as well.

Sounds good, High Gravity.

(COMMENT)

There are a number of options that we could consider.

But the thing we have to pick-up on is that Hezbollah is a power in some key states in the Middle East --- that needs to be recognized as a formidable opponent; especially in the weaken state of our political-military arm.

We don't need to aggravate the hostile if we have no intention of suppressing them into oblivion; the death rattle. If we are not willing to do that, then we should consider other options.

Otherwise, what starts out as a very minor issue, easily resolved, turns into the catalyst for an event (a hostile reprisal in terrorist form) that will push us (a reactionary counter strike) into another Middle East conflict for which we cannot win.

We are not a Super Power any more. And we don't have a 16 Division Army or an Air Force with an unlimited number of available flying hours. It is not the Army of WWII or Vietnam; and don't have the strength in our economy to build up what we've already spent in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[High_Gravity]

freedombecki, High_Gravity, et al,

We need to think about this carefully!

​

I say put the clown in Guantanemo, I don't give a damn if he is Hezbollah and most of Guantanemo is Al Qaeda and they don't like each other, if we try this case in court he may walk, and if we just leave him with the Iraqis they will more than likely set him loose as well.

Sounds good, High Gravity.

(COMMENT)

There are a number of options that we could consider.

But the thing we have to pick-up on is that Hezbollah is a power in some key states in the Middle East --- that needs to be recognized as a formidable opponent; especially in the weaken state of our political-military arm.

We don't need to aggravate the hostile if we have no intention of suppressing them into oblivion; the death rattle. If we are not willing to do that, then we should consider other options.

Otherwise, what starts out as a very minor issue, easily resolved, turns into the catalyst for an event (a hostile reprisal in terrorist form) that will push us (a reactionary counter strike) into another Middle East conflict for which we cannot win.

We are not a Super Power any more. And we don't have a 16 Division Army or an Air Force with an unlimited number of available flying hours. It is not the Army of WWII or Vietnam; and don't have the strength in our economy to build up what we've already spent in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Most Respectfully,
R

What do you suggest we do, just set him loose?

 

[Si modo]

He gets a trial?

And, the American gets summary execution.








I'm with High - off to Gitmo.

 

[Ropey]

We are not a Super Power any more. And we don't have a 16 Division Army or an Air Force with an unlimited number of available flying hours. It is not the Army of WWII or Vietnam; and don't have the strength in our economy to build up what we've already spent in Iraq and Afghanistan.

 

[High_Gravity]

He gets a trial?

And, the American gets summary execution.








I'm with High - off to Gitmo.

Well to be fair this guy was captured and Anwar was hiding in the mountains of Yemen, big difference.

 

[High_Gravity]

freedombecki, High_Gravity, et al,

We need to think about this carefully!

​

I say put the clown in Guantanemo, I don't give a damn if he is Hezbollah and most of Guantanemo is Al Qaeda and they don't like each other, if we try this case in court he may walk, and if we just leave him with the Iraqis they will more than likely set him loose as well.

Sounds good, High Gravity.

(COMMENT)

There are a number of options that we could consider.

But the thing we have to pick-up on is that Hezbollah is a power in some key states in the Middle East --- that needs to be recognized as a formidable opponent; especially in the weaken state of our political-military arm.

We don't need to aggravate the hostile if we have no intention of suppressing them into oblivion; the death rattle. If we are not willing to do that, then we should consider other options.

Otherwise, what starts out as a very minor issue, easily resolved, turns into the catalyst for an event (a hostile reprisal in terrorist form) that will push us (a reactionary counter strike) into another Middle East conflict for which we cannot win.

We are not a Super Power any more. And we don't have a 16 Division Army or an Air Force with an unlimited number of available flying hours. It is not the Army of WWII or Vietnam; and don't have the strength in our economy to build up what we've already spent in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Most Respectfully,
R

I have to disagree with you there, sure the US military doesn't have the size it used to in the pas but being a super power isn't just about the size of your military, the US is still looked upon in the Gulf States as their protector for the most part, the US will still play a big hand in the region even with all the cut backs, and just cutting this guy loose sends a bad message.

 

[RoccoR]

High_Gravity, et al,

Yes, there is much more to being a "Super Power" than just its military component.

I have to disagree with you there, sure the US military doesn't have the size it used to in the pas but being a super power isn't just about the size of your military, the US is still looked upon in the Gulf States as their protector for the most part, the US will still play a big hand in the region even with all the cut backs, and just cutting this guy loose sends a bad message.

(COMMENT)

I do not believe that the any country in the Middle East (ME) (or anywhere else in the world) looks at the US as a "protector." That is strictly a US Domestic image and an argument used to foster and muster radical war powers acts (Congressional Authorizations to Use Military Force). In the ME, any political-military arrangement, with the US, is looked at with a very careful eye. Least they face the fate of the Lady from Niger.

There was a young lady of Niger
Who smiled as she rode on a tiger;
They returned from the ride
With the lady inside,
And the smile on the face of the tiger.​

The US is a Political-Military Hegemony; exerting its influence over subordinate nations by the implied use of force (economic and militarily); rather than direct threat of military force.

No nation trusts the US; nearly all the allies are bought and paid for; especially in the ME. Every nation knows that any arrangement with the US (political, military or economically) invites meddling in the internal affairs of that nation which are driven by the perceived best interests of the US.

The question of being a "Super Power" has nothing to do with the strategy of hegemonic influence.

A superpower as "a country that has the capacity to project dominating power and influence anywhere in the world, and sometimes, in more than one region of the globe at a time, and so may plausibly attain the status of global hegemony."

While it is true, that the US has --- from time-to-time, projected significant military power --- allowing the US to exercise influence in a number of key locations in the world --- sometimes - in more than one region of the globe; in recent years - the concept of "dominance" has been placed in question. It has to do with the intended outcomes and whether they were achieved.

A "Super Power" must have an economy that can support and maintain this projection of power. A unemployment rises, as the Super Powers reliance resets in outsourced industrial capacity, and the time it takes to logistically refit, reconstitute and replenish forces in the field will have an impact on whether the subject of the hegemonic influence actually succumbs to the "dominating power;" or demonstrate that the attempt reveals an exploitable weakness.

If no one believes that you are "Persuasive in Peace --- and --- Invincible in War" --- then the mystic of being a "Super Power" will gradually erode.

While it is true that the US if first among Nuclear Powers, it is not something that really projects a threat. While it is true, that no conventional military conflict will fare well against a similar force field by the US, the rest of the world understands that the advantages of a conventional US military force can be challenged through a protracted and prolonged asymmetric counterforce; bleeding precious resources and monetary support.

It is also noted that the US Intelligence Community (IC) is not all-seeing and all knowing. Certainly in recent decades, the US IC has proven to be less than accurate, trustworthy and commendable. Similarly, the entire National Security Decision Making Process has demonstrated itself to be seriously flawed.

No single problem here (a very small sample) changes the image of America as a "Super Power;" but, collectively --- together they have changed the reality.

The US has the ability to, once again, achieve the legend --- but, it requires a very concerted effort --- and attention to the economy and scientific community (science/engineering -- research & development). Like all the historical powers, previous to the US, American is in decline. But we could rebuild the image. It requires rebuilding America, and bring a nationalistic pride and a level of patriotism in our nation, business and economy which we are not willing to make a commitment.

Just One Man's Opinion,
Most Respectfully,
R

 

[High_Gravity]

High_Gravity, et al,

Yes, there is much more to being a "Super Power" than just its military component.

I have to disagree with you there, sure the US military doesn't have the size it used to in the pas but being a super power isn't just about the size of your military, the US is still looked upon in the Gulf States as their protector for the most part, the US will still play a big hand in the region even with all the cut backs, and just cutting this guy loose sends a bad message.

(COMMENT)

I do not believe that the any country in the Middle East (ME) (or anywhere else in the world) looks at the US as a "protector." That is strictly a US Domestic image and an argument used to foster and muster radical war powers acts (Congressional Authorizations to Use Military Force). In the ME, any political-military arrangement, with the US, is looked at with a very careful eye. Least they face the fate of the Lady from Niger.

There was a young lady of Niger
Who smiled as she rode on a tiger;
They returned from the ride
With the lady inside,
And the smile on the face of the tiger.​

The US is a Political-Military Hegemony; exerting its influence over subordinate nations by the implied use of force (economic and militarily); rather than direct threat of military force.

No nation trusts the US; nearly all the allies are bought and paid for; especially in the ME. Every nation knows that any arrangement with the US (political, military or economically) invites meddling in the internal affairs of that nation which are driven by the perceived best interests of the US.

The question of being a "Super Power" has nothing to do with the strategy of hegemonic influence.

A superpower as "a country that has the capacity to project dominating power and influence anywhere in the world, and sometimes, in more than one region of the globe at a time, and so may plausibly attain the status of global hegemony."

While it is true, that the US has --- from time-to-time, projected significant military power --- allowing the US to exercise influence in a number of key locations in the world --- sometimes - in more than one region of the globe; in recent years - the concept of "dominance" has been placed in question. It has to do with the intended outcomes and whether they were achieved.

A "Super Power" must have an economy that can support and maintain this projection of power. A unemployment rises, as the Super Powers reliance resets in outsourced industrial capacity, and the time it takes to logistically refit, reconstitute and replenish forces in the field will have an impact on whether the subject of the hegemonic influence actually succumbs to the "dominating power;" or demonstrate that the attempt reveals an exploitable weakness.

If no one believes that you are "Persuasive in Peace --- and --- Invincible in War" --- then the mystic of being a "Super Power" will gradually erode.

While it is true that the US if first among Nuclear Powers, it is not something that really projects a threat. While it is true, that no conventional military conflict will fare well against a similar force field by the US, the rest of the world understands that the advantages of a conventional US military force can be challenged through a protracted and prolonged asymmetric counterforce; bleeding precious resources and monetary support.

It is also noted that the US Intelligence Community (IC) is not all-seeing and all knowing. Certainly in recent decades, the US IC has proven to be less than accurate, trustworthy and commendable. Similarly, the entire National Security Decision Making Process has demonstrated itself to be seriously flawed.

No single problem here (a very small sample) changes the image of America as a "Super Power;" but, collectively --- together they have changed the reality.

The US has the ability to, once again, achieve the legend --- but, it requires a very concerted effort --- and attention to the economy and scientific community (science/engineering -- research & development). Like all the historical powers, previous to the US, American is in decline. But we could rebuild the image. It requires rebuilding America, and bring a nationalistic pride and a level of patriotism in our nation, business and economy which we are not willing to make a commitment.

Just One Man's Opinion,
Most Respectfully,
R

I have to disagree on that Rocco, we signed a SOFA (Status of forces agreement) with Kuwait and Saudi Arabia right after we liberated Kuwait from the Iraqis, the Kuwaitis and Saudis don't particularly care for Americans but they accepted these agreements because they know they don't stand a chance against the Irans and Iraqs of the regions so they tolerate a US Military presence because they know it basically means they are protected, after we invaded Iraq we basically moved most of our troops from Saudi soil and placed them in Qatar, we have US Troops in all the Gulf Arab countries Bahrain, Oman, UAE, etc and we are not there for the gym, tanning and laundry, we are there because those countries feel more secure with US Troops in their countries. Tension with Iran is high at the moment and you best believe the Arabs would rather have us there than the Persians.