Jesus fucking Christ. What useless grandstanding on the Feds' part.
The original deal, which would reportedly have spared the alleged attackers the death penalty, was criticised by some families of victims.
Of course. It's an election year. Can't be 'soft on terror'.
A lot of the families are for this deal, but it’s a hard sell politically so the trial will continue for many years to come. May never end.
Isn’t the death penalty federally postponed anyways
Why would you want to be soft on terror?
it's a long-known irony that politicians who say they are "tough on X" simply mean they are using ill-considered rhetoric to launch ill-considered legislation, which has the opposite effect.
So close to shutting Gitmo down...
My understanding was these guys would still most likely be there for the rest of their lives with or without this deal.
As I heard it, once the pleas go in the goal was to get them into the federal prison system for life sentences.
I heard a report on the radio that a federal law was passed a while ago making it illegal to transfer prisoners from Gitmo to prisons within the US. These plea deals would have likeky meant the prisoners would live the rest of their lives in Gitmo, which they basically are anyway.
NPR's Serial series had a great season about Gitmo. The last two episodes in particular discuss why this case has been drawn out so long. They also talk with a group of family members of victims who support the plea deal if only to get some closure via official statements from the detainees.
Anyone know what method of death penalty they would receive? Lethal injection? Hanging?
Feds do lethal injection, I believe.
Is this federal? I thought it was military
That's what changed: Austin changed it from military to federal in order to put murdering them back on the table.
Catapulted into the sun, I believe.
It's easier to catapult into Jupiter
It's easier to catapult out of the solar system than into the sun.
Is it?
Couldn't we just shove them out of a plane flying over Idaho or something?
I think that might qualify as cool and unusual punishment.
It's even easier to catapult into Venus.
It's actually surprisingly really difficult to hit the Sun. Especially considering literally EVERYTHING in the Solar System is attracted to it.
Wait what?! How the shit is this still working it's way through the system after 23 years?!
So they lied to force false confessions and proceed to execute them anyways?
What fuckers. Tortured them for years, then lied to them to stop torturing and not aiming to kill them.
Who was the officer that originally made the plea deal, and without any white house involvement or even heads up it seems on what would obviously be an attention attracting action? With the general proximity to the election and after all this time they've been kicked top, timing feels deliberate to try to cause a difficult public moment for the administration?
Who is this person that approved the pleas originally and what's their background?
It is mentioned in this article.
Sorry, was late, I missed that. Thanks
Okay, so a lot of layers here, but a few things stand out...
She was a retired Army lawyer that studied at Berkeley. Austin appointed her to replace trump appointee a year ago
The trump appointee had been instructed to seek pleas previously.
Feels like news outlets intentionally focused on "plea deal" phrase alone, which many will likely immediately process as "release" instead of saying a firm guilty verdict that secures life in prison over the death penalty (especially reactive, vocal, co-opted 9/11 victims rights groups with trump flags on their trucks)
So timing feels either A) a dumb mistake when you could have pushed to after election with motions I imagine B) fear that dems wouldn't win the election and a new trump admin would execute or C) a very progressive prosecutor that is too idealistic, defiantly trying to make this a front and center election issue (even if it could have turned into a perceived trump strength for swing voters).
Thanks for providing this update. You added some sources and data that I didn't know, and your last point clearly articulates the set of likely causes of this misstep.
When I first became aware of this story my gut-reaction was "I fucking hate unforced errors like this!"; I'm now very curious why this happened the way it did. Mind you, in the grand scheme of things I suspect this is nothing more than a fleeting political blip.
BBC News Media Bias Fact Check Credibility: [High] (Click to view Full Report)
Name: BBC News Bias: Left-Center
Factual Reporting: High
Country: United Kingdom
Full Report: https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/bbc/
Check the bias and credibility of this article on Ground.News
Thanks to Media Bias Fact Check for their access to the API.
Please consider supporting them by donating.
Footer
Beep boop. This action was performed automatically. If you dont like me then please block me.💔
If you have any questions or comments about me, you can make a post to LW Support lemmy community.
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.
Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.
7. No duplicate posts.
If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.
All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.