Former US president George W. Bush convoluted some definitions. ‘The ambiguity began shortly after 9/11, when then-U.S. President George W. Bush defined two missions: waging a war on terror, and bringing Osama bin Laden and his followers to justice. Both made for good rhetoric. But they also were fundamentally contradictory. A war is not a judicial inquiry, and a criminal investigation is not part of war.’

However, there is no ambiguity in international law regarding the status of al-Qaeda members. ‘The Geneva Conventions do not apply to them because they have not adhered to a fundamental requirement of the Geneva Conventions, namely, identifying themselves as soldiers of an army.’

U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder’s decision ‘to transfer Khalid Sheikh Mohammed to federal court makes it clear that Mohammed was not a soldier acting in time of war, but a criminal.’ If the process goes by the stipulations of the Geneva Conventions, Mohammed’s actions in organizing the September 11 attacks, which were carried out without uniforms or other badges of a combatant, denies him status and protection as a Prisoner of War (POW). Logically, he is therefore a criminal.’

But spies, saboteurs and terrorists do not belong in the realm of international law. ‘This class of actors falls under the category of national law, leaving open the question of their liability if they conduct acts inimical to a third country. Who has jurisdiction? The United States is claiming that Mohammed is to be tried under the criminal code of the United States for actions planned in Afghanistan but carried out by others in the United States.’

9/11 revises some accepted legal norms. ‘The fact is that international law has not evolved to deal with persons like Mohammed.’

Image

Via STRATFOR