176 results (ordered by relevance)
<< first
< prev
page 12 of
36
next >
last >>
Khalid Shaikh Mohammad et al.: United States v. Khalid Shaikh Mohammad et al.
decision not yet available, Military Commission, United States
Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, a Pakistani of Kuwait birth, is the self-confessed mastermind of the 9/11 attacks on the United States which claimed the lives of nearly 3000 people.
Captured in Pakistan in 2003, he has been in United States custody, most recently at Guantanamo Bay, ever since. Mohammed, along with four other 9/11 planners, were charged and tried before a United States Military Commission in 2008 until charges were dropped in 2010. Following a failed attempt to transfer the five co-defendants to new York to stand trial before a civilian federal court, they were indicted once again in February 2011. Their trial is currently underway before the Military Commission at Guantanamo Bay.
Fofana & Kondewa: The Prosecutor v. Momina Fofana and Allieu Kondewa
Judgement on the Sentencing of Moinina Fofana and Allieu Kondewa, 9 Oct 2007, Special Court for Sierra Leone (Trial Chamber I), Sierra Leone
The Accused were members of the Civil Defense Forces of Sierra Leone, fighting the RUF (Revolutionary United Front) and AFRC (Armed Forces Revolutionary Council) rebels in an effort to restore the democratically elected President Kabbah who had been ousted following a coup. Their activities, however, did not always target enemy forces; large numbers of civilians, including young children and women were made the object of brutal attacks, often by machetes.
Fofana and Kondewa were convicted by Trial Chamber I for 4 counts of war crimes of murder, cruel treatment, pillage and collective punishment. Kondewa was additionally convicted for recruitment of child soldiers. The Trial Chamber, in determining sentencing, took into account the gravity of the offences and the role of the Accused. In particular, the Trial Chamber considered it a mitigating circumstance that the Accused had engaged in the conflict out of a sense of duty in order to protect civilians, and had pursued a legitimate and justifiable purpose of returning former President Kabbah to power. Consequently, Fofana was sentenced to 6 years in prison and Kondewa to 8 years.
Nazario Jr.: Jose Louis Nazario Jr. v United States of America
Judgment of Discharge, 28 Aug 2008, United States District Court Central District of California, United States
On 9 November 2004, Jose Louis Nazario Jr. was serving in Iraq as a member of the US Armed Forces. Nazario was leading a squad of 13 Marines on house-to-house searches. During these searches, Nazario allegedly killed two Iraqis, and encouraged two squad members to shoot two others. The alleged acts took place in Fallujah, Iraq.
In 2007, Jose Louis Nazario was brought before the US District Court in California. He was the first veteran to be tried in a civilian US court for alleged war crimes in Iraq.
The defence argued that there was no evidence of a deceased person, nor had the government provided a name or a sufficient description of any of the alleged victims. Deliberating in less than six hours, the jury found Nazario not guilty of manslaughter or assault. Jose Louis Nazario Jr. was acquitted on all charges on 28 August 2008.
R. v. Hamdan: Regina v. Othman Ayed Hamdan
Oral Reasons for Judgment, 22 Sep 2017, Supreme Court of British Columbia, Canada, Canada
Palestinian refugee Othman Ayed Hamdan was charged after posting on various Facebook accounts and pages regarding Middle East politics, particularly supporting ISIS presence in Iraq and Syria. He believed he was carrying out jihad, meaning struggle. The charges arose from 85 posts from Facebook accounts and pages. To prove the elements of the crime, the Crown had to prove two things: 1) that posts were likely to incite a reader to commit a terrorist act and 2) that Hamdan intended to incite his audience.
The Court determined that a reasonable person would find only one of the posts to be an active inducement to commit a terrorist act; however, the court also determined that the Crown could not prove Hamdan intended to induce a reader beyond a reasonable doubt. While the Court did not find Hamdan’s testimony on his intent credible, the court acquitted him because there was reasonable doubt.
Prosecutor v. Omar H.
Judgment, 23 Oct 2013, District Court of Rotterdam, The Netherlands
In one of the first cases concerning (potential) foreign fighters, Omar H., a Dutch citizen, was found guilty of preparing to commit arson and/or an explosion, and of incitement to commit a terrorist crime on 23 October 2013. The District Court of Rotterdam found that Omar H.’s actions of searching online for information about how to make homemade bombs, visiting certain websites, and his purchase of the necessary objects to make a bomb demonstrated he was preparing to commit an act of arson and/or explosion. However, the Court rejected the Prosecutor’s submission that this constituted training for a terrorist crime as there was a need for actual preparation or execution in order to speak of training. Omar H. was also found guilty of inciting terrorist crimes as he had put a film and text about terrorist attacks online, and he had started an online discussion about jihad in a public forum. Omar H. was sentenced to 12 months in prison, four of which were suspended.
<< first
< prev
page 12 of
36
next >
last >>