Lawyer: 9/11 defendants want platform for views

General General Discussion
1

How many here claimed this was going to happen in the other thread?

Let the circus begin!

NEW YORK – 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.

Scott Fenstermaker, the lawyer for accused terrorist Ali Abd al-Aziz Ali, said Sunday 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.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091123/ap_on_re_us/us_sept11_trial_defendants

2

ARGH!!! WHO GIVES A S*** ABOUT THEIR OPINIONS!!!

3

i would certainly hope the judge would put a gag order on the whole thing. no media in the courtroom, no interviews, nothing until its over.

4

I hope so too but my concern is Holden and this administration have created a monster here. In the other thread I stated that I believe this trial is more about the Bush administration and less about bring these guys to justice.

When I read news articles like this one it makes me think I might be right and I don’t want to be right in matters like this one.

5

well i don’t believe that their views on foreign policy are going to be limited to the Bush administration. their beef with our foreign policy goes back way before the Bush admin.

6

No, I meant I’m worried that this administration is going to use this as a outlet for attacking the Bush administration, not the terrorist. We know they’re going to use this opportunity to spread their message.

Which is another reason (among others) why I’m not in favor of allowing this to happen in federal court.

7

On its face, I’d have to agree with Holder on this. As a prosecutor, what more could you ask for than defendants who want to stand up in front of a jury of Americans, blocks away from the destroyed World Trade Center, and denounce America and everything it stands for? So a handful of crazy radicals say crazy radical things… Big deal.

There’s also an issue of relevancy, of course. Unless the defendants can tie their political views to some relevant issue in their defense (whatever it’s going to be), then airing those political views shouldn’t be allowed by the judge. But again, as a prosecutor, you might not object to it because in the end it’s just helping you get a conviction.

8

Their was a lawyer that is working with the 5 Tangos, on O’rielly last night. Pretty pathetic liberal weasel giving a lot of weasel answers. AND a former Air Force Officer to boot. Pathetic.

9

Lawyers who are defending their clients have a duty to do everything in their power. Whether you’re former Air Force or not this duty doesn’t change.

In fact I’d bet that his public statements are clashing with his private beliefs.

I’m still unclear why or how trying these people in a civilian court is a net gain for us in the GWT.

10

Isn’t evidence obtained from torture methods inadmissible in court?

11

Evidence recovered beyond the borders of the U.S. is handed differently than evidence recovered within its borders. SCOTUS decided that more than a decade ago when some druglord scumbags thought it would be a good idea to torture and murder a DEA agent named Enrique (“Kiki”) Camarena.

12

This is the part that worries me; I’m afraid they (Holden and the current administration) are doing it for the wrong reasons like putting the policies of the Bush administration on trial. Now, I won’t stick up for a defend those policies but I don’t want them to get in the way of sending these guys to their graves.

I’m also very worried that the trial will turn into their own personal media outlet to spread their message of hate towards the US.

13

Am I to assume that this is one (of maybe many) reasons they were taken to Gitmo instead of being brought here?

14

How does that apply in this case? I guess my point here is that KSM and the other 4 “Al CIAda” patsies they intend to hold trials for were all potentially (check that: were tortured) tortured. Any evidence obtained from “questionable interrogation” methods won’t be allowed in court, and if it is…how are we providing a fair trial?

15

Im no lawyer, but this kind of seems like a game over statement to me…

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

WTF are you gonna claim, self defense?

16

Agreed. Prosecuting illegal nonuniform combatants (Terrorist) , picked up on the battlefield, has never been done before in the US. The evidence obtained from confessions, via water boarding, will be argued ad nauseam. The evidence collected on the battlefield, if it was even collected or witnessed by US combatants, is probably gone. They have no rights, even as EPWs, as they are not uniformed combatants, let alone given the rights as a US Citizen. This will be a dog and pony show of epic proportions against the Bush Administration and give the douche bags a world stage to perform there diatribe.

Note to all Service Members in that AO, in order to save precious resources and money needed for the US Economy, interrogate captured terrorist at the capture location, then execute them will trying to escape. :slight_smile:

The kick in the nuts is, after openly confessing their guilt in Gitmo, they will now plead Not Guilty.

17

IMHO, it’s not. It gives them the Green Light. Just shows every terrorist org and state sponsors of it, what fools Americans are, and how weak this Administration is.
This should have stayed in Gitmo and handled by Military Tribunal. The whole thing reeks of an agenda by the current administration.

18

Absolutely. That’s a huge part of what the Camp X-Ray fight has been about. Things happening overseas that might “shock the conscience” and be great fodder for MSNBC’s latenight shows are prima facie illegal if they occur on U.S. soil. Once you – anyone, criminal or saint, citizen or invader – are on U.S. soil your treatment must comport with Constitutional directives.

The point SCOTUS made in the Camarena-related cases is that the US Constitution cannot trump another country’s constitution in its own land. For example, how can a U.S. federal agent get a US magistrate to issue a search warrant for property in Mexico? The magistrate has no authority in Mexico.

I’m not suggesting that the “torture” stuff won’t come up, but if it had happened on U.S. soil, the defendants would be free as soon as the court looked at the papers.

If I break into my neighbor’s house and find a stack of child pornography, I can bring it to the police and they can use that evidence in a trial. The government didn’t violate his civil rights; the government didn’t break into his house. Now, my neighbor can sue me for breaking into his house, but the “evidence” I collected is perfectly admissible.

This might all be a moot point, however, since it sounds like the defendants are not denying their involvement in the 9/11 attacks.

19

I get that as a lawyer you have to put your client’s interests above your own but I guess I have more of an issue with why the hell would you sign up to defend these douchebags in the first place? It’s not like they are public defenders (unless I’m mistaken) who were assigned to the case or something.

20

Wait… what?