NY Trial

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title Newest to Oldest

Pages: PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 NEXT

Hamilcar Facts trump assertions. 11/22/2009 9:30:35 PM

Lawyer: 9/11 defendants want platform for views

Nov 22, 5:28 PM (ET)

By KAREN MATTHEWS

NEW YORK (AP) - The five men facing trial in the Sept. 11 attacks will plead not guilty so that they can air their criticisms of U.S. foreign policy, the lawyer for one of the defendants said Sunday.

Scott Fenstermaker, the lawyer for accused terrorist Ali Abd al-Aziz Ali, said the men would not deny their role in the 2001 attacks but "would explain what happened and why they did it."

The U.S. Justice Department announced earlier this month that Ali and four other men accused of murdering nearly 3,000 people in the deadliest terrorist attack in the U.S. will face a civilian federal trial just blocks from the site of the destroyed World Trade Center.

Ali, also known as Ammar al-Baluchi, is a nephew of professed 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.

Mohammed, Ali and the others will explain "their assessment of American foreign policy," Fenstermaker said.

"Their assessment is negative," he said.

Fenstermaker met with Ali last week at the U.S. prison at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba. He has not spoken with the others but said the men have discussed the trial among themselves.

Fenstermaker was first quoted in The New York Times in Sunday's editions.

Critics of Attorney General Eric Holder's decision to try the men in a New York City civilian courthouse have warned that the trial would provide the defendants with a propaganda platform.

Dean Boyd, a spokesman for the Department of Justice, said Sunday that while the men may attempt to use the trial to express their views, "we have full confidence in the ability of the courts and in particular the federal judge who may preside over the trial to ensure that the proceeding is conducted appropriately and with minimal disruption, as federal courts have done in the past."

Last week, the Senate Judiciary Committee questioned Holder for hours about his decision to send the five 9/11 suspects to New York for trial.

Critics of Holder's decision - mostly Republicans - argued the trial will give Mohammed and his co-defendants a world stage to spout hateful rhetoric. Holder said such concerns are misplaced, and any pronouncements by the suspects would only make them look worse.

"I have every confidence that the nation and the world will see him for the coward that he is," Holder told the committee. "I'm not scared of what Khalid Sheikh Mohammed has to say at trial - and no one else needs to be, either."

The attorney general said he does not believe holding the trial in New York - at a federal courthouse that has seen a number of high-profile terrorism trials in recent decades - will increase the risk of terror attacks there.

======================================================

Holder is not the only person who holds those "opinions" he asserts as the facts here plainly negate him. He asserts an awful lot of unsubstantiated opinions, doesn't he? Or he has another agenda and takes us for damned fools.

I was not raised a fool to be lied to. Apparently he was, or is, since I now have him on a logic fork. Either he is that stupid as he sounds, as he says that the court will not be turned into a propaganda trial; or he thinks people like me are stupid that he can lie that stupidly and believe him. Either way he is a fool (as is his boss). So the question for those who think like him is: "How many others, like him, are you out there?"

Don't be shy. Speak up.

Quote Reply

Godofgamblers 11/22/2009 9:41:19 PM

Sorry, GOG, but I disagree that the Taliban are warriors. Just because they pick up a gun and shoot people for their own goals does not make them soldiers.

I think GOG knows the difference. He just posted the twisted point of view of those d_ckheads and pointed out that civilian trial may lead to release of those terrorists due to the deficiency of Western legal system.

Now I start to understand Jack Ruby.

Yelli

Yes, that's exactly what I meant!

Sentinel

Hi again Sentinel, good to read your prose. You and DA though seem to equate Al Qaeda and the Taliban. Al Qaeda are dangerous psychotics that need to be put down, but the Taliban are no threat to anyone. They just want to rule in their caves and make sure everyone's beards are the proper length. They are a menace to no one but themselves. Which is why the current war in Afghan is a blunder. The real enemy is Al Qaeda. If they are such a menace to the Afghan people, then if there is enough popular dissent, the people will take them down... but i suspect there is not.

To use an analogy, if you want to kill Moriarty, the best way to go about it is to actually go and kill Moriarty; launching a campaign on his underlings, the London lowlifes who take small payments to do jobs, is not the way to go about it. Al Qaeda are the (albeit delusional) brains; the Taliban are like the London dross who accept backhanders to do some dirty work. With Moriarty gone, they are nothing.

Quote Reply

appleciderus 11/22/2009 10:34:27 PM

I understand how easy it is to go off on tangent subjects when the subject is as emotional and confusing as prosecuting terrorists. Warriors, non-combatants, innocent bystanders, jihadists, criminals, disturbed, or even insane? Geneva Convention? Constitutional rights? Each probably has a different prosecutorial approach.

The question I asked seems to be best answered by Timon: who is best served by this circus?

Go back and read Timon?s post. (page 4)

I would add that this administration accepts as reasonable any of the human and financial costs of the trial so history will record trial testimony as proof the previous administration was guilty of war crimes, torture, etc.

There is no other apparent benefit to this farce. The discussion here demonstrates how confusing the issue is, and I believe this confusion is intentional. It allows the next generation of text books to document how the US used torture, etc. to persecute those who simply didn?t agree with the big bad GW.

How petty to sacrifice innocents to justify your political beliefs and revise history before it is written.

I am always stupefied by those who would sacrifice others simply to be in charge.

Quote Reply

DarthAmerica @GoG 11/23/2009 4:36:02 PM

Yelli

Yes, that's exactly what I meant!

Sentinel

GoG,

Let me be clear. I said and meant that AQ are warriors and enemy combatants. That is different from a soldier which is another type of warrior. AQ are not "criminals" nor should they be treated as such. Suggestions that they are not logical. They commit acts of terror against the United States and other governments for the purposes of forwarding a larger political agenda. The "terror" is a tactic they use. As practitioners they are indeed "terrorist". This category of warrior has no internationally agreed upon criteria even though there is unofficial general consensus. Having said they, in spite of the methods, their intent is the same ultimately as the other opponents of the United Stated in past wars. They seek to use violence and fear thereof to compel the USG to do or not do certain things. As horrific as that can be, it's still an act of war rather than a crime. It's an act of war perpetrated by NON-State actors. This is an important distinction because nation states have and still often do sanction state sponsored terrorism overtly, covertly and of course clandestinely. That includes the United States.

The Taliban, also warriors, are guerillas/insurgents. I'm not sure I'd go so far as to say they aren't a menace. But they are definitely distinct and different from AQ. The danger of the Taliban is that they harbored and supported organizations like AQ and if they succeed in taking back Afghanistan, there is the change that they could resume those activities which are quite obviously dangerous to US interest.

The real danger of this trial is not that they will use it as a forum to shout propaganda. Their mere existence and captivity already does that. There is no increased danger of terrorism in NY either. The court handling this case has done this before. The danger is that this trial could compromise sources and methods and that it sets the precedent for our own covert operatives to face similar prosecution for so-called "criminal acts-of terrorism". The way KSM was handled prior to this decision is not ideal for a criminal case. Not mirandized, tortured, given no counsel ect. KSMs rights in a criminal setting were violated in every way imaginable which means any conviction will not have the legitimacy it should. An aquittal or mistrial would be equally disastrous. Last but not least, you will not find a non-biased jury. For all of these reasons a military venue would have been much better.

-DA

Quote Reply

Godofgamblers 11/23/2009 9:25:39 PM

DA, i agree with some of your points, but not that AQ are in any way warriors. If you have made a personal interpretation and in your own view they are warriors, then i cannot change your mind, nor will i try. But if you wish to speak in legal terms, you will find it hrd to justify your postion.

They have no country, thus, they cannot declare war. Nor can they be treated as POWs. Only as common criminals. And delusional ones at that. Their enemy is not just the US, the US is but one of a contingent of enemies that they seek to destroy. This reveals the sheer scope of their meglomaniacal insanity.

Also they randomly attack civilians, which also means in the books of most people and countries that they have effectively checked out of the human race.

Charles Manson also wished to create a pure society. The US justice system dealt with him as a psychopath, which is how Al Qaeda should be.

As for the Taliban, i don't think we should get into this because it is a whole other matter but in my view, Afghan holds no strategic importance. AQ can hole up in about a dozen various states, so there is no use in occupying them all. In fact, AQ would be very happy were the US try to do so. OBL has in the past indicated that this is his master plan, in fact. If they were to set up ops in Mexico, i would agree that the US would do well to invade to amputate the infection because of the strategic position of Mexico. But invading Afghan just doesn't make sense. It is of no value. The Talibs are of no danger to the US; they will never launch an attack against the US. They are just pawns. Same with the Somalis, etc. In fact, there are also AQ cells in the west and in Asia. Taking over the countries to prevent AQ basing there is tilting at windmills.

Anyway, you know more about the Talibs than i will ever, but that is my armchair view on the matter.

Quote Reply

sentinel28a 11/24/2009 2:14:58 AM

GOG, the women of Afghanistan disagree with you about the Taliban being "no threat to anyone." The ones who are still alive and not permanently disfigured anyway. Oh, and let's not forget the number of capital offenses available in Taliban territory...flying kites, listening to rock music, doing anything the Taliban doesn't like, etc.

Yeah, they're no threat, just as much as the Gestapo was no threat to anyone so long as you did exactly what you were told.

DA, by comparing the terrorists of AQ to soldiers, you are insulting your own profession. Unless the US Army has now made murdering civilians wholesale to be SOP, AQ's fighters are not soldiers, no more than the Einsatzgruppen were. All they deserve is a firing squad. Simplistic? Perhaps. But it is the only language they understand. To paraphrase William T. Sherman, they have chosen war as their remedy and we should give them all the medicine they can hold.

Quote Reply

Hugo Sentinel 11/24/2009 5:57:29 AM

I disagree that one has to wear a uniform to be a soldier just as those wearing uniforms are not necessarily soldiers. There are countless examples, including your own country, where ordinary men voluntarily took up arms and wore that which was available to them.

I also disagree that the Taliban are not soldiers. Being a soldier and a criminal are not mutually exclusive. It is entirely within a man's ability to be a soldier in the morning and a criminal in the afternoon. The Taliban member who survives a gunfight against Soviet troops only to murder an "imodest" female later that same day is both a soldier an a criminal. If he were to be captured by US troops during the gunfight then he needs to be treated as a prisoner of war. If he is discovered to have murdered a civilian then he needs to be treated as a war criminal. Soldiers or warriors, that's semantics. If you take up arms against enemy soldiers, you yourself become one. If you take up arms against civilians then you are a criminal. Al Qaida are criminals, much of the Taliban are also criminals in addition to being soldiers.

A not insignificant portion of the Taliban's fighting prowess originates with the training that their forerunning Mujahadeen members received from the US government. Were they soldiers whilst fighting the Soviet Union in alliance with the US and yet now that they are fighting the United States using those same techniques, now improved, have morphed into criminals? If they were criminals now merely on account of the despicable ideology they espouse, then they were also criminals whilst the US helped them because that ideology and their designs for Afghanistan have not changed in the slightest. But then of course they are not merely criminals, they are also soldiers fighting an ideological war against Western ideals and, in the case of Afghanistan, occupation.

Personally, I don't feel these Al Qaida criminals ought to be tried by the US military. It wasn't the US military's rights that were violated. Let the citizens of New York, and others harmed evaluate the crimes committed and the appropriate punishment. I feel confident that they will do a better job of justice than the political ditherers in Washington.

Quote Reply

DarthAmerica @sentinel 11/24/2009 1:46:27 PM

How did I compare them? I simply stated the fact that AQ are "Warriors". Here are the definitions:

One who is engaged in or experienced in battle.
One who is engaged aggressively or energetically in an activity, cause, or conflict: neighborhood warriors fighting against developers.

As opposed to soldier:
1. One who serves in an army.
2. An enlisted person or a noncommissioned officer.
3. An active, loyal, or militant follower of an organization.
  
  Now, as you can see by definition, AQ members and Soldiers have differences. However, both are warriors.
  
  Where is the disagreement?
  
  -DA

Quote Reply

buzzard 11/24/2009 2:03:16 PM

I think you have a poor grasp of the U.S. legal system and the liabilities involved in this approach. There's a lot of things which could get them off the hook here due to technicalities, and there's far too much in the way of intelligence means and sources which will be exposed in civilian court.

There is no legitimate practical upside to trying them in NY.

Quote Reply

sentinel28a 11/24/2009 2:08:46 PM

I guess I have none, DA. Other than the fact that anyone who picks up a gun is now a warrior.

Gang members who kill for turf and drugs? Warriors.

Al Capone's torpedoes? Warriors.

Quantrill's terrorists? Warriors.

Chivington's people? Warriors.

AQ types? Warriors.

Me, when I pick up my hunting rifle? Warrior. Never really thought of myself as one, since the deer can't exactly shoot back, but I'm now a warrior in the same class as an elite SF type in Afghanistan or a samurai. Makes me feel warm and fuzzy, but it's not accurate.

I guess you and I differ on the definition of a warrior. I see gangbangers, Mafia gunmen, and terrorists as criminals who should be treated as such. You apparently do not. At some point one crosses the line between a soldier with rules and a criminal who kills for fun. Do you see what I'm saying here?

Quote Reply

PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 NEXT