The Government's Win-Win Solution Against Liberty

[Phaedrus]

With the establishment of precedents such as being able to get away with holding a person indefinitely without charging (as in the case of Jose Padilla) and being able to arbitrarily determine that a person is suddenly a danger to America despite months of being allowed to walk free on the streets (as in the case of Ali Marri) the US government has now set itself up for an easy victory against one of it's most embarrassing opponents, accused 9/11 conspirator Zacarias Moussaoui.

Yesterday the Justice Department refused a court order from US District Judge Leonie Brinkema to produce a subponaed witness in Moussaoui's trial, Ramzi Binalshibh. The witness is one of hundreds of people currently being detained by the Justice Department as an "enemy combatant" with no right to unfettered legal assistance and little if any contact with the outside world.

Judge Brinkema now has several options with which to sanction the Justice Department for refusing to comply with a judicial order (an act which, ironically, the Justice Department would be howling about if Moussaoui had done the same thing) Based on the order and the nature of the Justice Department's rebuttal, Brinkema could even go so far as to dismiss the case against Moussaoui.

This extreme (and unlikely) measure would no doubt have the ACLU and other ostensibly liberty-oriented groups partying like it's 1999 all over again. But unfortunately, the Justice Department has set a dangerous precedent in the case against Marri, by declaring a person an "enemy combatant" and remanding him to military custody despite the fact that no such assessment has been made against him in nearly eighteen months of legal proceedings.

The Supreme Court is currently weighing a motion filed by Marri's attorney demanding that the Justice Department be issued a writ of habeus corpus, which would require the DoJ to produce whatever evidence that they have against Marri and name the specific charges against him. But as with all other Supreme Court cases, this will take time, and the beast that is Ashcroft's DoJ uses every second it can usurp to fight against the freedom of this nation.

Most Americans are too apolitical to notice or care, but the unfurling proceedings against Marri, Moussaoui and Padilla will go down in American history as the harbingers of the end of freedom in America, if the DoJ has it's way.


Phaedrus

 

[Phaedrus]

As the government's case against Moussaoui continues to bog down, they have now accused him of plotting to fly a 5th plane, maybe by himself, maybe with others, possibly on September 11th or some other date, most likely into the White House, based on the evidence that Moussaoui had a dream about it in 2000.

No, as a matter of fact I am not kidding.

One can only speculate how much longer the DoJ will let Moussaoui run circles around them before they just declare him an "enemy combatant" and be done with it.


Phaedrus

 

[Phaedrus]

It seems as though the Moussaoui case is simply coming unraveled ... it will be interesting to see if the DoJ declares Moussaoui an "enemy combatant" although I doubt that they would given the amount of backlash they would most likely get.

There are more than 1,000 seperate motions and rulings in the Moussaoui case to date (archived here if you're interested.) The excerpt below is from Memorandum #1033, filed on 29 August by Judge Brinkema, and seems almost to foretell of the future direction of this trial:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Having carefully reviewed Moussaoui's pro se pleadings, counsel's memoranda, and attachments thereto, as well as the [...] summaries [...], the Court concludes [...] detainees will likely be able to provide exculpatory testimony which the defendant has a constitutional right to present to the jury at trial. ...

[Three pages redacted]

In light of the particular allegations in the indictment and the United States' desire to hold Moussaoui responsible for the tragic events of September 11, 2001 by seeking a penalty of death in his case, the Court finds that the defense has made a sufficient showing [the witness] could provide material and favorable testimony on Moussaoui's behalf. See United States v. Valenzuela-Bernal, 458 U.S. 858, 867 (1982). [...] At minimum, such testimony would eliminate the possibility of a death sentence, and could exculpate him from the specific conspiracies charged in this case.

The Court finds unpersuasive the Government's contention [the witness] inculpates, rather than exculpates, the defendant in the charged offenses. As stated in our Memorandum Opinion of March 10, 2003, the ultimate determination as to the value of a witness' testimony is for the jury to make in the context of the other evidence introduced at trial. The prosecution does not make this evaluation.

The Government's argument [the witness'] trial testimony would be unnecessarily cumulative is also without merit. [...] could undoubtedly offer unique insight into the defendant's role, if any, in the charged offenses. Further, as the defense contends, [the witness] could both bolster and expand upon the trial testimony the defense would attempt to elicit [from another witness?]. That [a witness'] testimony would corroborate [...] for the September 11 operation would not, as the Government contends, be unnecessarily cumulative, [...] The United States' contention that this testimony would be cumulative is simply disingenuous in light of its representations that the Government will neither make [a witness] available for the court-ordered Fed. R. Crim. P. 15 deposition, nor declassify [...] summaries [...].

[full page and a half redacted]

The Court finds that the defense has adequately demonstrated that, if called as a witness at trial, [the witness] could provide material, exculpatory testimony on the defendant's behalf. [...]

[...] supports the defense contention that Moussaoui was not involved in the September 11 operation. [...] supports the claim that Moussaoui was not part of the September 11 plot because the defendant was in the United States at the time, but was not contacted [...].
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

And just to go over one part of that one more time:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>At minimum, such testimony would eliminate the possibility of a death sentence, and could exculpate him from the specific conspiracies charged in this case. ... The United States' contention that this testimony would be cumulative is simply disingenuous ...

The Court finds that the defense has adequately demonstrated that, if called as a witness at trial, [the witness] could provide material, exculpatory testimony on the defendant's behalf. [...]

[...] supports the defense contention that Moussaoui was not involved in the September 11 operation. [...] supports the claim that Moussaoui was not part of the September 11 plot because the defendant was in the United States at the time, but was not contacted [...].
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

In other words, Judge Brinkema (along with myself and a [hopefully] growing number of people) think that John Ashcroft and the Department of Justice are full of shit. They refuse to produce witnesses on weak and transparent 'national security' grounds, when in fact they are simply afraid to allow any wild cards at a table where their hand is already iffy at best.

In July, the DoJ was orderd to produce Ramzi Binalshibh as a witness, a man who is currently a prisoner at Guantanamo and has been for over a year now -- so it's not like he's been going back and forth setting up a terrorist attack. It's not like he is going anywhere but straight to the court and straight back, no doubt in a getup that would make Hannibal Lector feel claustrophobic. So why is the DoJ afraid to let Binalshibh into the proceedings, so afraid that they would risk default? Because if Judge Brinkema simply dismisses the case (which is now well within the court's power and authority) then they can simply change tracks and start the fight over again. With a potentially damaging witness brought into the proceedings the case could be completely derailed.

How long can the DoJ keep this up? For how long can the American people not see this obscenity for what it is?


Phaedrus

 

[Phaedrus]

Wow, "unraveling" is hardly the word ... try "charges dropped" ...

From the Guardian:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
US tries to drop charges against 9/11 'conspirator'

Agencies
Friday September 26, 2003

US prosecutors attempting to bring a case against the so-called "20th hijacker", Zacarias Moussaoui, have been forced to ask for all charges against him to be dropped, a legal manoeuvre they hope will keep him from calling other terrorism suspects as defence witnesses.

Prosecutors ran into trouble with the case after two district court orders gave Mr Moussaoui the right to question three suspected al-Qaida members who he says could testify he was not a conspirator in the September 11, 2001 attacks. The government argues he does not have the right to question suspected terrorists.

The justice department wants the district court judge to drop the charges against Mr Moussaoui, so that an appeals court can hear the case and overrule the district court orders.

"In light of the rulings this court has already made ... the government believes that, at this juncture, dismissal of the indictment ... is the surest route for ensuring that the questions at issue here can promptly be presented to the 4th circuit [court of appeal]," the government's written motion said.

US district judge Leonie Brinkema has said she would impose a punishment on the government next week for defying the two orders, which gave Moussaoui - a French citizen - the right to question the witnesses through a satellite link.

Prosecutors have opposed any direct access between the prisoners and Mr Moussaoui, who has acknowledged his loyalty to Osama bin Laden, and is the only defendant to be charged in the US as a conspirator with the September 11 hijackers.

The government has argued that national security would be gravely harmed if any details were revealed about the sensitive interrogations or statements made by the prisoners, who are held at undisclosed locations outside the US.

However, federal law says that when a defendant is prevented by a court order from disclosing classified information - in this case the al-Qaida testimony - the judge is obliged to dismiss the case unless the court determines the interests of justice would be served by another solution. Mr Moussaoui's defence team, which is representing his interests despite his insistence on serving as his own lawyer, said in a motion released Wednesday that the case should be dismissed.

Two of the prisoners Moussaoui intended to call as witnesses are allegedly among Osama bin Laden's top operatives; Khalid Shaikh Mohammed - fingered as the September 11 mastermind, and Ramzi Binalshibh - accused as being a key planner of the attacks. The third, Mustafa Ahmed al-Hawsawi, is a suspected al-Qaida paymaster.

In a statement, the justice department said, "We believe the [US] constitution does not require, and national security will not permit, the government to allow Moussaoui, an avowed terrorist, to have direct access to his terrorist confederates who have been detained abroad as enemy combatants in the midst of a war." The government said in the motion that the issue before the court was whether the constitutional right to access to favourable witnesses applies to an enemy combatant "seized and held abroad during armed hostilities".

A three-judge panel of the appellate court has heard oral arguments on the witness access issue, and has said it would intervene after Ms Brinkema issued her sanctions against the government.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Phaedrus

 

[Phaedrus]

Nearly a year later ... the fun never ends ...

Appeals Court: Moussaoui Can Question Terror Suspects

Court Also Reinstates Death Penalty Possibility

(Associated Press)

WASHINGTON -- There was a court victory for suspected terrorist Zacarias Moussaoui Monday.

An appeals court ruled Moussaoui can submit written questions to suspects being held as enemy combatants as he tries to prove he wasn't involved in the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. Moussaoui is charged with taking part in the 9/11 plot.

The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Va., backed a lower court ruling that gave Moussaoui access to the other suspects, but not in person.

The court ruling noted that statements by some unidentified combatants could help Moussaoui's defense.

But the court is also reinstating the possibility of the death penalty for Moussaoui.

A lower court had denied the government the right to pursue the death penalty because it refused to grant Moussaoui adequate access to the witness statements.

Monday's ruling was heavily censored for national security concerns.

 

[xpanda]

Yes, well. You realise that under Saddam this guy would already have been tortured and killed. Besides, the American people are safer.

Or so it goes.

 

[Phaedrus]

Well, three years and more bizarre twists than a David Lynch-directed soap opera later, Moussaoui has plead guilty to six of the charges against him, copping to compliance in the 9/11 attacks and other charges.

What a bizarre case.


Phaedrus

 

[eek.]

"In 2002, Moussaoui, a Moroccan-born French citizen, tried to plead
guilty but changed his mind after the judge gave him a week to
reconsider. "

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4475179.stm

Maybe to be a martyr he has to be honest.
Maybe the US homeland KGB found the right taser spot.
Maybe they've got a relative of his in the UK and did a deal with him.
Maybe he's gone potty.


After 3 years the press is going to have to pump this one really hard to get it erect, the whole case sounds like a classic fifties courtcase in mother russia.


----------------------------------

Speaking of which....on the same day...

Top brass cleared over Iraq abuse

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4475657.stm

hehe.
Thank goodness the US is thousands of miles away from the rest of us.
Have fun guys.

 

[eek.]

I notice that the US protestor movement has gone underground too.

-------------------------------
Where did all the protesters go?
By Matthew Davis
BBC News, Washington

Just a few hundred people picketed the latest IMF-World Bank spring meetings - a far cry from a few years ago when it seemed no summit of world financial institutions was complete without thousands of protestors on the streets.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4453135.stm

--------------------------------------

There's a G8 cocktail party due over here in a couple of months.
A lack of homeland security KGB over here should help to coax out more than a few hundred 'approved by the state' protestors.

 

[Phaedrus]

Man, the Moussaoui case is beyond a doubt my nominee for "Little Story that Could" of all time ... it just never stops churning out weird new shít, even after nearly four years!

Angry judge puts Moussaoui trial on hold

Brinkema says U.S. government committed ‘egregious violation’

(Associated Press/MSNBC)

ALEXANDRIA -- An angry federal judge considered Monday whether to dismiss the government’s death penalty case against confessed al-Qaida conspirator Zacarias Moussaoui after a federal attorney coached witnesses in violation of her rules.

“I do not want to act precipitously,” U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema said in scheduling a special hearing on the case Tuesday, but she said that it was “very difficult for this case to go forward.”

Brinkema said a lawyer for the Transportation Security Administration sent e-mail to seven Federal Aviation Administration officials outlining the prosecution’s opening statements and providing commentary on government witnesses from the first day of testimony. That was in violation of her pretrial order barring witnesses from exposure to any opening statements or trial testimony.

“An attorney for the TSA ... egregiously breached that order,” she told jurors before excusing them until Wednesday. Of the seven, three were to testify for the government and four were potential defense witnesses.

Government officials identified the attorney as Carla Martin.

Life in Prison Would Still Apply

Brinkema wanted to hear Tuesday from the seven and from the attorney who contacted them to help her decide whether to throw out the government’s case. If she does, Moussaoui would escape the possibility of execution and be sentenced to life in prison without chance of parole.

She said the rule against witnesses hearing testimony in advance is “a very important protection of the truth-seeking process.”

Moussaoui appeared bemused as the lawyers debated how to proceed. Leaving the courtroom, he said, “The show must go on.”

The stunning development came at the opening of the fifth day of the trial after the government informed the judge and the defense over the weekend of the attorney’s contact.

“This is the second significant error by the government affecting the constitutional rights of this defendant and more importantly the integrity of the criminal justice system of the United States in the context of a death case,” Brinkema told lawyers outside the presence of the jury.

Defense attorney Edward MacMahon moved to have the judge dismiss the death penalty as a possible outcome, saying “this is not going to be a fair trial.” In the alternative, he said, at least she should excuse the government’s FAA witnesses from the case.

Prosecutor David Novak replied that removing the FAA witnesses would “exclude half the government’s case.” Novak suggested instead that the problem could be fixed by a vigorous cross-examination by the defense.

‘Egregious Violation’

But Brinkema said she would need time to study what to do.

“In all the years I’ve been on the bench, I have never seen such an egregious violation of a rule on witnesses,” she said.

The defense did not move for a mistrial, which would have restarted the proceedings.

Moussaoui is the only person charged in this country with the 9/11 attacks. He pleaded guilty in April to conspiring with al-Qaida to hijack planes and to other crimes, but he denies any role in 9/11. He says he was training for a possible future attack.

Brinkema noted that Thursday, Novak asked a question that she ruled out of order after the defense said the question should result in a mistrial. In that question, Novak suggested that Moussaoui might have had some responsibility to go back to the FBI, after he got a lawyer, and then confess his terrorist ties.

Brinkema warned the government at that point that it was treading on shaky legal ground because she knew of no case where a failure to act resulted in a death penalty as a matter of law.

Continued here.


Phaedrus

 

[nimue77]

Why are you comparing the United States to Iraq? If the DOJ ignores settled law it is o.k. because it is not as bad for the defendant as would have been in Iraq under Saddam? I'm glad you are not running the aclu or on the supreme court if that is your reasoning.

Yes, well. You realise that under Saddam this guy would already have been tortured and killed. Besides, the American people are safer.

Or so it goes.

 

[Phaedrus]

nimue77, meet sarcasm. Sarcasm, nimue77. You guys get to know each other, play nice and I'll be back later with some Tang and Rice Krispie Treats just before naptime.


Phaedrus

 

[BASEHEAD]

Man, the Moussaoui case is beyond a doubt my nominee for "Little Story that Could" of all time ... it just never stops churning out weird new shít, even after nearly four years!



Continued here.


Phaedrus

Things not going a "easy" as projected.

 

[Masxmenos]

Don't think the case will go much further. The feds have already screwed the pooch on what they have and it was a weak case to begin with. Of course, I don't have access to all the evidence so I could be wrong.

BDizzle

 

[CAPNCRUNCH]

Don't think the case will go much further. The feds have already screwed the pooch on what they have and it was a weak case to begin with. Of course, I don't have access to all the evidence so I could be wrong.

BDizzle

That would be impossible to have access to all the evidence B, some of it they haven't even made up yet!

 

[Masxmenos]

That would be impossible to have access to all the evidence B, some of it they haven't even made up yet!

:lolBIG:

Just the witness coaching part will be devastating especially for a "Death Penalty" case. Now every witness the prosecution has will be considered by the jury, "Coached". On top of that, even with a conviction the judge might not give the max because she needs to now take into account that the whole thing might have been "doctored". Now Moussaoui looks like a friggin' retard and has admitted to being a member of Al Queda supposedly, but he still needs to have a fair trial... after all it is his life that is at stake.

BDizzle

 

[CAPNCRUNCH]

I am not advancing any conspiracy theories, I would just like to know how, if this guy Marsaui whatever is representative of the other hijackers, how they could have pulled this off? He does not seem the sharpest tack in the box, so to speak.