| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Adele |
Posted - October 01 2003 : 1:28:02 PM
Moussaoui case tests US justice
By Kathryn Westcott
BBC News Online
The case of Zacarias Moussaoui, the only person in the US to have been charged in connection with the 9/11 attacks on the US, has escalated into a landmark battle over a defendant's rights.
No doubt, when the 35-year-old French citizen of Moroccan origin was indicted 21 months ago, many people thought the case would be over by now.
But it has hardly started.
The case has become bogged down in a legal debate over whether the defendant can get a fair trial while the US Government refuses to allow him access to particular witnesses for national security reasons.
The US Constitution has emerged as an obstacle to the Justice Department's efforts to prosecute Mr Moussaoui.
Prosecutors say Moussaoui was to have been the 20th hijacker
He is accused of conspiring with 19 other men who carried out the attacks on the US on 11 September 2001.
The Sixth Amendment of the Constitution guarantees access to witnesses and other evidence to ensure a fair trial.
However, the witnesses Mr Moussaoui wants to hear evidence from are being held at undisclosed locations by the US military and are undergoing sensitive interrogation.
The three detainees are suspected al-Qaeda operatives:
*Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, alleged to be the 9/11 mastermind;
*Ramzi Binalshibh, believed to be a key planner of the attacks;
*Mustafa Ahmed al-Hawsawi, believed to be an al-Qaeda financier.
The BBC's security correspondent Frank Gardner says the whole interrogation process is highly classified.
Ramzi Binalshibh is being held at a secret location
"The military don't want to blow ongoing operations in the drive to wrap up the leadership of al-Qaeda," our correspondent says.
"They don't want information spilling out in a court in Virginia, in fact, they want to keep lawyers as far away as possible."
According to some experts, interrogators need to sustain a psychological advantage over the detainees by depriving them of all contact with the outside world.
But the judge presiding over the Moussaoui case in Virginia, Leonie M Brinkema, has already ruled that the Justice Department should allow the defendant to hear the detainees' evidence through a satellite hook-up.
In particular, Mr Moussaoui wants to hear evidence from Ramzi Binalshibh.
Defence court documents argue that statements made by Mr Binalshibh to his interrogators would help show that Moussaoui was "a problematic and unstable hanger-on who could never be trusted to be a participant in any significant undertaking by al-Qaeda and was not a participant in the plan for the 11 September attacks".
Human rights fears
The government's continued refusal to allow evidence from the detainees could now lead to the charges against Mr Moussaoui being dismissed.
We are also becoming alarmed at the growing trend to have people classified as enemy combatants and moving such cases into the sphere of military justice
Neil Durkin, Amnesty International
In that case, Mr Moussaoui could find himself being designated an "enemy of the state" and appearing before a military commission.
The government has said that if it is unable to get a court to recognise the need to protect national security in this case, it will have no choice but to put Mr Moussaoui before such a commission.
A US legal expert, Professor Scott Silliman, says the government is trying to negotiate a legal maze in an environment that has changed massively in the past two years.
The law in question is the Classified Information Procedures Act, under which classified information in federal courts is normally handled.
Legal moves
The Act allows the Justice Department to appeal against Judge Brinkema's decision to allow Mr Moussaoui access to the witnesses.
But once the appeal is lodged, the judge can take sanctions against the Justice Departme |
| 25 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| richfed |
Posted - October 11 2003 : 11:46:11 AM
I really should have posted this much earlier ... I have no excuses.
While I am most happy that this latest episode seems to have passed, I just wanted to add that I think it grossly unfair for any one of us to judge any other one individual who posts here based on their National origin. In Ilse's case, her home country, just for the record, has been one of our most steadfast allies in this Iraq War. I know, from knowing her, that Ilse loves the American people & is in no way a communist.
We all need to temper our emotions and avoid - at all costs - unwarranted attacks on each other of a personal nature. It can't work that way.This Lions Den forum is for members to voice their opinions on a myriad of issues, regardless of the side chosen. It should be a place where folks can, as Adele so eloquently stated, debate reasonably without resorting to temper tantrums & snide pot shots.
There is no doubt in my mind that we are all more than capable of accomplishing that. No one can post here - on these types of heated issues - and expect 100% agreement.
Each person here holds a special place in my heart, none more so than "Dutchie" Ilse who has been inhabiting these parts since nearly the beginning ...
|
| richfed |
Posted - October 09 2003 : 1:09:00 PM
Ah, I love when things work out like that. It's a weird thing - two long-time friends of mine at odds - to be sitting there, dumbstruck [not that that's unusual!], in the middle. Eats me up.
Good to see you talking! |
| Bill R |
Posted - October 09 2003 : 12:43:00 PM
Ilse!
 |
| Ilse |
Posted - October 09 2003 : 09:18:11 AM
Hi Bill,
No problem. I took some time off to cool down, and, as was pointed out, I too overreacted. Wrong post at the wrong time. My apologies to you too. Yes, we were getting along better and I like to see that continue!
Scott,
You really wrote a very, very interesting, clarifying post, and I like to address those issues. However, when I saw it last night it was after midnight (bad time for posting), now I'm at work, so I'll wait till I'm home tonight, with a good dictionary in reach :) |
| Theresa |
Posted - October 07 2003 : 07:28:29 AM
Wooohoooo!! Bill's back. Thank you, Bill...waiting to learn even more from ya and to die laughing at your hilarious posts. |
| SgtMunro |
Posted - October 06 2003 : 6:43:27 PM
Good to have you back, bud. You'll never jump alone into a hot DZ...
Your Most Humble Servant,
|
| Bill R |
Posted - October 06 2003 : 10:18:19 AM
Okay okay. I haven't read this entire thread backward - not sure I dare - but point taken. I reacted. Musta been the testosterone thing. I never understood why testosterone was a BAD thing. Especially in my older years when I have less of the damn stuff than ever before in my life! I assumed. As any Army sargeant will tell you - assuming makes an as* outta you and me. Never assume. Maybe I over-reacted. Hope so. Ilse and I seemed to be getting along so well up to that point. Apologies. Partly my reaction was based on proximity of her post to mine, and my very emotional in the gut feelings about somebody trying to assassinate his own officers in the field, in combat, before the war even starts, AND being a paratrooper who did that to boot. Lowest form of life there is, I think. But anyway........apologies to Ilse if I over-reacted. |
| richfed |
Posted - October 06 2003 : 06:32:18 AM
Excellent, well thought out post, Adele [yeah, Scott, your's was good, too!] - thank you for taking the time to post it.
I wish it could be as you describe, but it is not something everyone is capable of, apparently. I just desire that the "leaving syndrome" could be set aside ... |
| Adele |
Posted - October 06 2003 : 05:30:11 AM
Grrrrrr.....
It is way too easy to read what we want to read and allow our initial emotional reaction to dictate our response. That is the problem. If I had a penny for every time I have had to bite my tongue, delete my original response, or wait 24 hours before making a response...I would be a very happy woman right now! I actually agree with Ilse to a certain extent, and it has nothing to do with being European, or not understanding the US reaction to 9/11 (although the points are well-taken Scott), it has simply to do with the basic rules of debate. One's argument or position on an issue is considerably weakened when passion or emotion is allowed to take over, because the facts, logic and reason of your debate are lost under the expression of feeling. It can intimidate or alienate other debaters, which does not make for a very positive discussion arena. 'Take the worthless raghead out and shoot him' or sentiments like it, are not really useful or informative comments, in my opinion. However, a response starting with 'He should have a military tribunal because....' would make worthy reading I think.
Emotion and passion have a place for all of us, they are the driving force to fight for what we believe is right, but they really need to be kept in hand when debating one's cause. Everytime there is an emotional outburst of this type here, the chances decrease of having other board regulars join in a discussion, and that is so sad. People have stated that they don't join in because it is too stressful, or because they are afraid they will be made to look foolish. And I can understand that, because some of the debates here become so aggressive. They key to making your point well, is not how forcefully it is expressed, but how calmly and rationally you respond, how provocative are your questions, how well do you use facts to back up your argument.
I know Ilse well, and I admire her blunt no-nonsense stance, and I like her sense of humour, and in a way, reactions to her post have made her case! Nobody asked what prompted her reaction, or asked her to clarify why she thought the debate had gone off topic, there were just an instant emotional reaction, and a lot of assumptions that this had to do with censorship, or difference of opinion. I think when she did clarify...she had a good point.
And Bill, who I met at G2K, and have always had a great affection for, I wish would return. As I said before, I have learned a lot from him, and enjoyed his posts. I think that he has been trying really hard to keep a grip on his emotions whilst discussing topics he obviously feels very passionately about, and I do respect that.
Finally, I have to say, that I really REALLY hate it when a debate here is turned into a you vs us scenario. I think I made that feeling clear in an early post! We all have cultural differences, regardless of where we were born and raised and we should be enjoying those differences and using the opportunity to learn. It is way too easy to say, I am American so I think/feel/react like this and you are European so you think/feel/react like this. It's ridiculous! Ilse and I rarely agree on ANY serious issue we debate! But we listen and learn. I am sure that when Rich asked people to be moderators for certain forums, he picked people who would be fair, and as yet, I have not seen any moderator abuse their role, including this particular issue.
Are we having any fun yet?! 
HM
PS Ilse, get back here, we need to have some serious debate about hats.... |
| Scott Bubar |
Posted - October 05 2003 : 7:10:06 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Bill R
... Guess it's the year to return and leave. Just as pissed off as the last time I tried to be part of this place. ...
Bye all.
Bill, get your sorry ass back here, son. |
| Scott Bubar |
Posted - October 05 2003 : 7:06:16 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Ilse
I didn't even have Bill in mind when I posted my comment..... ?
Maybe to clarify a bit: these are my totally personal and subjective feelings on this particular forum. I feel an increasing aggressiveness here, and, connected to that, decreasing willingness to open up oneself to different opinions and different arguments, to listen and respond to them. I tried to address that in a bit of an ironic way (I thought), but apparently failed miserably. I'm sorry for that.
It seems I'm the only one feeling like this, so that's the point for me to say: soit! Continue as you see fit. Never did much moderating in the first place, and I'm quite done with it now. I'm on a break.
Ilse, I started a post on this prior to this posting, but had to wander off and work on dinner, etc.
Here it is, but I'd like to add that well, to put it bluntly, you're overreacting as much as Bill did. You do a fine job. No one's perfect.
quote:
Originally posted by Ilse
Can we get the male testosterone thing a bit decreased here? Speaking as moderator, not as participant. This does not seem to go anywhere, right now. This has nothing to do with the topic anymore. I'm tempted to lock this thread.
Ilse
Well, now that Adele has praised me for the brevity of my response, I have to confess that I was in a bit of a rush at the time, and further that I felt I might unwisely choose words were I to elaborate.
I do however have more to say--albeit with some trepidation.
Firstly, Ilse, you maintain that Sgt. Munro and Bill's responses have "nothing to do with the topic anymore".
They are in fact replying directly to the topic. Constitutional rights do not necessarily extend to foreign nationals, and in fact there are circumstances in which they do not apply even to U.S. citizens. Their contention that this would be best handled by military tribunal is quite appropriate and on-topic.
OK, that was the easy part.
Before I go further, Ilse, I'd like to say a couple of things. I have the utmost respect and admiration for your wit and wisdom, and ability to see things objectively. Secondly, I doubt my own ability to express this precisely and would have to ask you to bear with me.
The injury and trauma (psychological more than physical) visited on this nation on 9/11/01 were unparalled in my 51 years. In the aftermath, the support of the British government was greatly appreciated. However, the overwhelming response we got from continental Europe was that we somehow deserved it--along with snide comments about our supposed naivety, expressed fears that we might somehow run amok, admonitions to reconsider our foreign policy, etc.
The idea that we somehow "deserved" this is directly analagous to telling a woman who's been raped that she "deserved" it for wearing a mini-skirt. If anything, this was even more painful than the initial trauma. Granted, it wasn't limited to Europeans--not a few Americans came out with the same nonsense, but the response from the continent was overwhelming and shocking.
These feelings are still very much with many of us, Ilse, they haven't necessarily faded with time, though sometimes they lay below the surface and pop up at inopportune moments.
This is what is going to seem (and in fact with regard to you as an individual is) unfair and unreasonable:
What Sgt Munro and Bill are saying here, if a bit over the top, is nothing many of us don't think or speak among ourselves. For a European to threaten to censor it is, well, a bit beyond the pale.
If you |
| Ilse |
Posted - October 05 2003 : 5:10:22 PM
I didn't even have Bill in mind when I posted my comment..... ?
Maybe to clarify a bit: these are my totally personal and subjective feelings on this particular forum. I feel an increasing aggressiveness here, and, connected to that, decreasing willingness to open up oneself to different opinions and different arguments, to listen and respond to them. I tried to address that in a bit of an ironic way (I thought), but apparently failed miserably. I'm sorry for that.
It seems I'm the only one feeling like this, so that's the point for me to say: soit! Continue as you see fit. Never did much moderating in the first place, and I'm quite done with it now. I'm on a break. |
| Adele |
Posted - October 04 2003 : 1:33:22 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Bill R
Not surprised. Ah, the power of a moderator. Lock that which you personally don't agree with, or have any interest in.
And I thought we were coming along so nicely, you and I.
Maybe it's toning down of estrogen that's needed..............
Betcha if we were ranting about how the US is oppressive, overbearing, ripping away the rights of the world, performing assassinations everywhere, how capitalism isnt working and we should go communist.........we'd be fine, eh? Or saying how we deserved the attack of 9-11 for all the evil in the world we do, and for being such arrogant, testosterone laden peoples, that would be fine.
I figured there was only SO much pro-US statements you could tolerate before kicking in............
Why I left in the last place.
Guess it's the year to return and leave. Just as pissed off as the last time I tried to be part of this place.
If you ever decide to move to the US do consider a condo in Kalifornia. You'd fit right in.
Bye all.
Bill, I have to say it...I think this response is incredibly unfair, and I have a feeling (I hope!) that when you have calmed down a little and thought it over, you might see that this response was completely unwarranted.
I introduced this post as a basis for discussion of 6th Amendment rights because I thought it moved along nicely from our discussion on 2nd Amendment rights, and it HAS gone astray somewhat. There is really no grounds to make a personal attack on someon; if you disagree with Ilse, a comment such as Scott's would have sufficed.
'Nuff said on that! As with the others, I would be sorry to lose your input on this board, you are extremely knowledgeable about a lot of topics, and I for one have learned a lot, and been encouraged to find out more because of an interest YOU have sparked.
So...take a deep breath...count to ten (or a hundred if you feel the need!  )
HM
PS Am not gonna forget the estrogen comment for a while!!  |
| SgtMunro |
Posted - October 04 2003 : 12:39:53 PM
Bill, don't go amigo!!!! As an old PJ (and a fellow graduate of Ft. Bennings's 'School for Boys'), I'd jump with you anytime/anyplace/anywhere, you are good people.
Your Fellow 'T-10 Rider',
|
| Wilderness Woman |
Posted - October 04 2003 : 10:48:43 AM
Agreed!
Bill, though we've never met in person, I really like you. I enjoy your passion and your tell-it-like-it-is-ness. I tend to be that way too when I really let my hair down (even though it gets me into trouble too!).
Please, please take the things Rich said above very much to heart. And then change your mind... and stay.
 |
| Theresa |
Posted - October 04 2003 : 10:14:39 AM
Agree, Rich. Bill, you are such an asset to this place. You have such knowledge about so many things that I've actually learned from YOU! I think if you look around you'll find there are many here that agree with you on many issues, me for one....I just don't feel articulate enough to express opinion sometimes (I usually come across as sounding like I don't know what I'm talking about...duh) So, don't leave us. We need you here. |
| richfed |
Posted - October 04 2003 : 07:11:03 AM
Oh, c'mon, Billy ...
Why does a difference of opinion need to result in "leaving"? Calm it down ...
I think Ilse was suggesting locking the topic because she felt it was straying too far from the original premise. She was simply trying to keep it on track. No biggie ...
All that would be needed would be to start a "Bashing Moussaoui" thread - and Lord knows, he needs a good bashing - problem solved.
Moderators were chosen to help me. They are people I trust, people I know, people who - to me, at least - have demonstrated a dedication to this place over a long period of time. I don't care what their political, religious, or social stance is on anything, as a look over who moderates here plainly demonstrates. [Others fit the bill as well; I selected based on who was here - and active - at the time, among other things.]
Ilse, one of those people, fits that description. I think you misread her intentions - there are very clear differences in how many Europeans view the world in comparison to many Americans. It's a cultural thing - we all see things partially based on our own life experiences - nothing can be done about that ... Celebrate the differences! And, the commonalties that hold it all together! No doubt Ilse And I are on opposite sides of many issues, this one included, I think. Who cares? She's slept at my house, mingled with my children ... I take her as is!  And, she me.
Bill, you are as big a part of the fabric of this place as anyone has ever been over time ... I love you as you are. 
Please, relax ... and try to have fun ... FUN is what it's supposed to be all about here. Remember, William, our private discussions not too long ago ... |
| Scott Bubar |
Posted - October 03 2003 : 10:31:41 PM
You're misreading it, Ilse. |
| Bill R |
Posted - October 03 2003 : 9:30:59 PM
Not surprised. Ah, the power of a moderator. Lock that which you personally don't agree with, or have any interest in.
And I thought we were coming along so nicely, you and I.
Maybe it's toning down of estrogen that's needed..............
Betcha if we were ranting about how the US is oppressive, overbearing, ripping away the rights of the world, performing assassinations everywhere, how capitalism isnt working and we should go communist.........we'd be fine, eh? Or saying how we deserved the attack of 9-11 for all the evil in the world we do, and for being such arrogant, testosterone laden peoples, that would be fine.
I figured there was only SO much pro-US statements you could tolerate before kicking in............
Why I left in the last place.
Guess it's the year to return and leave. Just as pissed off as the last time I tried to be part of this place.
If you ever decide to move to the US do consider a condo in Kalifornia. You'd fit right in.
Bye all.
|
| Ilse |
Posted - October 03 2003 : 7:40:28 PM
Can we get the male testosterone thing a bit decreased here? Speaking as moderator, not as participant. This does not seem to go anywhere, right now. This has nothing to do with the topic anymore. I'm tempted to lock this thread.
Ilse |
| Bill R |
Posted - October 03 2003 : 2:48:07 PM
There was some talk of military tribunal, while others wanted to put him on trial. Forget who was for what, whether Bush wanted Tribunal and Powell wanted trial.....or other way around. I'd agree though, with military tribunal. Precedence is there for that for war criminals.
Speaking of jerks who betray their country, anybody heard anything more on status of that slime who fragged the officers of 101st before the war kicked off? Did he even make it home? I'da had him make his last jump on the way home. "Gee, don't know what happened, the door just popped open and he fell out. Like a good trooper though, he yelled Geronimo and God bless Bush and the USA and God damn the Taliban and Osama Bin Ladin, and more faintly as he fell through 18,000 (6,000 below flight level of aircraft) he yelled I'm sorry and I'm a worthless raghead sympathizer and member of Nation of Islam forgive meeeeeeeeeeeeeee......... Honest sir, that's exactly the way it happened!"
|
| SgtMunro |
Posted - October 03 2003 : 2:13:46 PM
Zacarias Moussaoui is an 'Illegal Combatant', as set forth by the Hague Accords, the Geneva Convention as well as the UCMJ (Uniformed Code of Military Justice). What he and his ilk did was part of an orchastrated sneak attack on our country. There is only one solution, and the President dropped the ball on this, that is a military tribunal followed by excecution by hanging or firing squad. "Oh no Sarge, you mean he is not innocent until proven guilty!" Yep, that about sizes it, time to apply rule 5.56 or 7.62! Then we can put that little spoiled SOB they found fighting for the Taliban in Afganistan against the wall next. Followed by that treacherous Islamic Cleric and Interpreter, both pretending to be loyal and patriotic members of our nation's warrior caste.
Trust me folks, those animals will run out of 'martyrs' before we run out of bullets. Time to put a third shift on a Winchester-Olin...
Your Most Humble Servant,
|
| Bill R |
Posted - October 03 2003 : 10:47:16 AM
Well, I wasnt talking about adopting the laws, merely the punishments of his country for HIM, and wasnt serious.
HOwever, I dont give a crap about his US Constitutional rights. He has none. And as I said, he should be tried as a war criminal. He helped in an act of war against this country, and he targeted masses of civilians purposely. Different rules for such folks.
I do care about knee jerk reacting to the horror of the attack and giving over extraordinary powers to Gov that can be used against us some day. Gov doesnt need those kinds of powers for the war against terrorism. Better communication and cooperation between intelligence agencies, a central database, better intelligence gathering techniques and better cooperation with foreign agencies, less politics and no turf battles would go a long way. Also, how about tighter immigration? Why let the sob's into the country in the FIRST place? How about allowing "profiling" instead of playing politics with that subject? Keep them out in the first place though, would be a good start.
I remember when I was going to Penn State we lived in an apartment in the middle of a motel-like building and four Iranians lived in the end apartment. Screwing every white babe they could, drunken parties every weekend, slamming America every step of the way, and telling American guys American girls are all whores. Bragging that they couldn't wait to get back home and work for Khomeini. One of the sob's was a nuclear physics major. How friggin stupid can we be?
Everybody in the complex, once they'd talked to them, thought they were Aholes and were glad to see them go. |
| Adele |
Posted - October 03 2003 : 02:42:38 AM
quote:
Is this "Terrorism Act" anything like the special law enforcement powers granted by the "Patriot Act"?
It's similar, but by no means the same. I had to read up on the Patriot Act, because I didn't know a great deal about it, but it seems to focus a lot on 'spying' e.g. extended freedom to wiretap, and follow internet usage. To be quite honest, to me it appeared a real mish-mash of things, hastily put together, and as an emotional reaction to 9/11, instead of a really thought out, long term measure against terrorism. I have a problem with the name 'Patriot Act' too - am not sure exactly why - but it bothers me!
quote:
Originally posted by Bill R
I would agree that the Constitution and BOR should apply to all citizens. That's why I am upset with what is going on in the name of striking back against terrorism through some of those new agencies and laws I talked about. Too easy to be used against citizens by merely making the accusation against them that they might be involved in some sort of terrorism. On the other hand, I disagree that foreign nationals who come to a country with the specific goal to kill masses of civilians and one day destroy that very system of government and laws should be given it's protections.
Period. How about we compromise? How about we give him the identical same trial, defense, rights and punishment he would be given by HIS culture....the one he is fighting for, and the one he is fighting to install world-wide? Fair enough?
Bill, I had EXACTLY the same thought as I was writing my response post! However, firstly, I think it would be impossible to carry out in practice, and secondly, what if your criminal was a citizen of a country ruled by say, the Taliban? Supposing a member of the Taliban gets on a plane, flies into the USA and goes on a maiming and killing spree of all the women in the vicinity? His defense could be, that in his country, a woman who wears lipsticks can have her lips cut off in the street, or a woman who displays any flesh or hair is subject to have her hands and feet cut off, prostitutes can be shot etc etc. Under his laws, he would be protected.
The fact is, we have an idea of what justice is and we have our laws on crime and punishment. If we are willing to abandon those laws because the criminal is foreign, it suggests we have more approval for the laws of the foreigner than we have for our own laws. We make their case.
It reminds me of the incident where the US soldiers who crashed their helicopter in Somalia. Their bodies were dragged through the streets of Somalia to the horror of the US public. This event was denounced as barbaric and appalling. Yet, I wonder what would happen if a 9/11 terrorist was put on display in the same way in New York? Now, don't get me wrong, I am not suggesting that the roles of the people involved in those two events are remotely similar, but the point is, it is all about perspective. To some countries, the people of the US are the devil incarnate, as Osama bin Laden might be considered by US citizens. Our perceptions and emotions can not be allowed to overrule the law, justice and rights that our countries are founded upon, or we lose our very identity.
Sorry for the sidetrack - got carried away there!
HM |
| Bill R |
Posted - October 02 2003 : 6:27:39 PM
I would agree that the Constitution and BOR should apply to all citizens. That's why I am upset with what is going on in the name of striking back against terrorism through some of those new agencies and laws I talked about. Too easy to be used against citizens by merely making the accusation against them that they might be involved in some sort of terrorism. On the other hand, I disagree that foreign nationals who come to a country with the specific goal to kill masses of civilians and one day destroy that very system of government and laws should be given it's protections.
Period. How about we compromise? How about we give him the identical same trial, defense, rights and punishment he would be given by HIS culture....the one he is fighting for, and the one he is fighting to install world-wide? Fair enough? |
|
![The Mohican Board! [Bumppo's Redux!]](images/wwwboard.gif "The Mohican Board! [Bumppo's Redux!]")
