| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
 Posted: Mon Jan 26, 2009 2:55 pm Post subject: Lawyer for 9/11 conspirator Moussaoui moves for new trial |
 |
|
| Quote: |
Lawyer for 9/11 conspirator Zacarias Moussaoui moves for new trial
By Associated Press
Monday, January 26, 2009 - Added 5h ago
EmailE-mail PrintablePrintable Comments(4) Comments LargerSmallerText size ShareShare Rate(0) Rate
RICHMOND, Va.- A lawyer for Zacarias Moussaoui told a federal appeals court in Virginia that the Sept. 11 conspirator should get a new trial.
Moussaoui was sentenced to life in prison after pleading guilty to helping plan the 2001 terrorist attacks. His case is before the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
Moussaoui�s lawyer, Justin Antonipillai told a three-judge panel today that the plea should be thrown out because the government didn�t turn over evidence that could have aided the defense. Justice Department attorney Kevin Gingras argued Moussaoui knew the information existed but pleaded guilty anyway.
The panel vigorously questioned both attorneys for 90 minutes before closing the hearing. The court usually takes several weeks or months to rule.
� Copyright 2009 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Comments(4) Comments | Post / Read Comments
|
http://news.bostonherald.com/news/us_politics/view.bg?articleid=1147904&srvc=next_article
Only 70,000 more like this one to go. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 26, 2009 3:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| The rule of law is back. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 26, 2009 3:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
| The rule of law is back. |
With all due respect. This is not just about the US justice system it is also a national security issue. How can the US justice system handle tens of thousands of terror cases ? How much will all the security cost for the judge and the Jury cost? And what is the US to do about protecting methods and sources? In 1993 the US spent 30 million dollars sending 7 terrorists to jail.
It is going to cost a lot of money. I would rather money like that be spent on medical research or alternative energy than spent defending the rights of Khaled Sheik Mohammaed to the very end. Protecting their civil rights to the end is just not something that is important.
It was the opinion of the Clinton administration that there was not enough evidence to convict Bin Laden in a US court so he was allowed to go from the Sudan to Afghanistan.
Sandy Burger Bill Clinton's own national security adviser wanted Saudi Arabia to take Bin Laden and cut off his head. I don't fault him for putting national security above the rule of law. He knew what the US was up against.
In 1979 Khomeni could have been killed before he took power in Iran.
Is the US better off cause it respected the rights of Bin Laden and Khomeni?
At least to me the answer is pretty clear.
Above while thinking about the rule of law when those like Khomeni and Bin Laden are stopped - it is justice.
For some civilian courts are appropriate for others military courts are just fine.
and when a Bin Laden or a Khomeni is out there , their civil rights ought to be the last consideration , or not a consideration of all.
Fear is not the motivation. Justice is. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
some waygug-in
Joined: 25 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 27, 2009 6:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
Yes, and guess what you'd be saying if You, your brother/uncle/father/cousin(s) were picked up and falsely accused of plotting terrorist attacks.
How long would you survive waterboarding? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 27, 2009 7:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
| some waygug-in wrote: |
Yes, and guess what you'd be saying if You, your brother/uncle/father/cousin(s) were picked up and falsely accused of plotting terrorist attacks.
How long would you survive waterboarding? |
Nothing about waterboarding here.
What would someone from the mideast be doing in Afghanistan. Besides they military trials do offer protections. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
some waygug-in
Joined: 25 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 27, 2009 7:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Why don�t you go live in China if you think civil rights are not important? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 27, 2009 7:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
| The rule of law is back. |
You know, J. Carter and his supporters were saying something like that as they watched friendly govts in Iran and Nicaragua fall...
Let us hope that the B. Obama administration will proceed on surer footing with these captives, Kuros. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 27, 2009 8:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
| some waygug-in wrote: |
| Why don�t you go live in China if you think civil rights are not important? |
It is also justice when Al Qaeda doesn't get its way.
Anyway you aren't from the US and you are a 9-11 conspiracy theorist so your opinion doesn't matter much. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
some waygug-in
Joined: 25 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 27, 2009 9:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
Cool.
If it doesn�t matter, why do you waste time responding? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 27, 2009 2:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
| Kuros wrote: |
| The rule of law is back. |
With all due respect. This is not just about the US justice system it is also a national security issue. How can the US justice system handle tens of thousands of terror cases ? How much will all the security cost for the judge and the Jury cost? And what is the US to do about protecting methods and sources? In 1993 the US spent 30 million dollars sending 7 terrorists to jail.
It is going to cost a lot of money. I would rather money like that be spent on medical research or alternative energy than spent defending the rights of Khaled Sheik Mohammaed to the very end. Protecting their civil rights to the end is just not something that is important.
It was the opinion of the Clinton administration that there was not enough evidence to convict Bin Laden in a US court so he was allowed to go from the Sudan to Afghanistan.
Sandy Burger Bill Clinton's own national security adviser wanted Saudi Arabia to take Bin Laden and cut off his head. I don't fault him for putting national security above the rule of law. He knew what the US was up against.
In 1979 Khomeni could have been killed before he took power in Iran.
Is the US better off cause it respected the rights of Bin Laden and Khomeni?
At least to me the answer is pretty clear.
Above while thinking about the rule of law when those like Khomeni and Bin Laden are stopped - it is justice.
For some civilian courts are appropriate for others military courts are just fine.
and when a Bin Laden or a Khomeni is out there , their civil rights ought to be the last consideration , or not a consideration of all.
Fear is not the motivation. Justice is. |
In order for justice to be served, all must be given minimal procedural due process rights. The US gives its own citizens the most rigorous criminal due process rights the world over. I'm not suggesting detainees in the war on terror or whatever you want to call it get the same rights. I am, however, suggesting that we give them the rights the US contracted with the world to give them at Geneva until such time as the US negotiates and arrives at a treaty and an international arrangement that best reflects the necessity of the times.
I agree with you that the current domestic system is flawed as applied to detainees. Absolutely. But the police do a better job apprehending the right suspects when certain procedural due process minimums are in place.
Procedural due process minimums include:
Right to Habeas Corpus (meaningful opportunity to challenge the erroneous application or interpretation of the law)
Right to counsel
Right to be present at hearings and confront the witnesses against you Right to present evidence of innocence
Protection from hearsay
Right to an efficient trial
Conviction only if preponderence of evidence is against you (note: this is MUCH easier for the gov't than criminal trials of US citizens, which requires acquittal if there is a reasonable doubt)
Right to appeal |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 27, 2009 2:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| some waygug-in wrote: |
Cool.
If it doesn�t matter, why do you waste time responding? |
One more thing since the US is a free country allow its citizens to decide which things ought to get top priority. You have zero standing to tell any US citizen what they ought to value. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
some waygug-in
Joined: 25 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 28, 2009 6:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
So in you're mind, asking you some questions is the same as telling you what to do?
You do seem to have some sort of persecution complex.
It just seems odd to me that someone from the US would be saying that Americans have too much freedom. It would seem that you would be happier living in a place like China for a while. Perhaps then you would start to appreciate all those freedoms that so many Americans have fought and died for.
Or perhaps your uncle Kim Jong Il in North Korea would welcome you?
I'm sure that with your way of thinking, you'd fit right in there. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 28, 2009 8:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
Ah noticing that the US justice system would have great difficultly dealing w/ Al Qaeda makes you someone who is sympathetic to NK.
One great thing about the US is that there is freedom to choose what to value over others.The way you ask questions it seems you would like to take that freedom away Thank goodness you don't got that kind of power.And when Al Qaeda doesn't get what they want that is justice. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bacasper
Joined: 26 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 28, 2009 8:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
| Kuros wrote: |
| The rule of law is back. |
With all due respect. This is not just about the US justice system it is also a national security issue. How can the US justice system handle tens of thousands of terror cases ? How much will all the security cost for the judge and the Jury cost? And what is the US to do about protecting methods and sources? In 1993 the US spent 30 million dollars sending 7 terrorists to jail.
|
That is because, after supplying their asset, Egyptian cop Emad Salim, with the plans, money, and explosives (which Salim thought were dummy explosives but were actually live) for the first WTC bombing, the FBI refused to continue to pay him his $500/week salary not long before the plan was to go into effect.
Salim recorded the call with his FBI handler (something the handler was supposed to take precaution against). I have heard it myself and you can, too, in the archives of expertwitnessradio.com.
After the bombing, the agency spent $1.5 million to apprehend the perpetrators and millions more on the trial.
Preventing the bombing, as they should have and failed to do, would have been the cheapest alternative. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 28, 2009 9:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
| bacasper wrote: |
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
| Kuros wrote: |
| The rule of law is back. |
With all due respect. This is not just about the US justice system it is also a national security issue. How can the US justice system handle tens of thousands of terror cases ? How much will all the security cost for the judge and the Jury cost? And what is the US to do about protecting methods and sources? In 1993 the US spent 30 million dollars sending 7 terrorists to jail.
|
That is because, after supplying their asset, Egyptian cop Emad Salim, with the plans, money, and explosives (which Salim thought were dummy explosives but were actually live) for the first WTC bombing, the FBI refused to continue to pay him his $500/week salary not long before the plan was to go into effect.
Salim recorded the call with his FBI handler (something the handler was supposed to take precaution against). I have heard it myself and you can, too, in the archives of expertwitnessradio.com.
After the bombing, the agency spent $1.5 million to apprehend the perpetrators and millions more on the trial.
Preventing the bombing, as they should have and failed to do, would have been the cheapest alternative. |
no matter what it would have cost a lot.
Besides it is a good idea to get all planners not just the ones sent to carry out the act. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
