Welcome! Please take a few seconds to create your free account to post threads, make some friends, remove a few ads while surfing and much more. ClutchFans has been bringing fans together to talk Houston Sports since 1996. Join us!

Judge bars government from seeking death penalty against Zacarias Moussaoui

Discussion in 'BBS Hangout: Debate & Discussion' started by RocketMan Tex, Oct 2, 2003.

Tags:

Page 1 of 2

RocketMan Tex Member

Joined:

Feb 15, 1999

Messages:

18,452

Likes Received:

119

CNN is reporting that a judge has barred the government from seeking the death penalty against Zacarias Moussaoui in connection with the 9/11 terror attacks. No "whys", "wherefores" nor any details as of yet, but I sure would like to see them.

#1 RocketMan Tex, Oct 2, 2003

GreenVegan76 Member

Joined:

May 14, 2003

Messages:

3,336

Likes Received:

1

I'm curious about this, too.

I'm encouraged, though, by the first signs of civility our government has shown in the vaunted War on Terror.

#2 GreenVegan76, Oct 2, 2003
ima_drummer2k Member

Joined:

Oct 18, 2002

Messages:

36,425

Likes Received:

9,373

Originally posted by GreenVegan76
I'm encouraged, though, by the first signs of civility our government has shown in the vaunted War on Terror.
Click to expand...

GV, if this scumbag is found guilty of being one of the plotters of 9/11, would you not wish the death penalty on him? I'm not trying to be smart, just curious.

#3 ima_drummer2k, Oct 2, 2003
El_Conquistador King of the D&D, The Legend, #1 Ranking

Joined:

Jun 11, 2002

Messages:

15,630

Likes Received:

6,591

He can look forward to a life in solitary confinement in a federal prison. He will need to be isolated or else he will surely be targeted by other inmates eager to inflict a little Texas Justice. Enjoy those 50 years in the hole, Zac!

#4 El_Conquistador, Oct 2, 2003
RocketMan Tex Member

Joined:

Feb 15, 1999

Messages:

18,452

Likes Received:

119

Here is the story:

http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/10/02/moussaoui.sanctions/index.html

Judge sanctions prosecution in Moussaoui case
Thursday, October 2, 2003 Posted: 2:24 PM EDT (1824 GMT)

(CNN) -- A federal judge on Thursday banned the government from presenting evidence that the only person in the United States indicted in connection with September 11 had advance knowledge or participated in the attacks.

The sanction came after the prosecution refused to follow her earlier order to produce defense witnesses.

Issuing sanctions in the legal standoff, U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema also struck the death penalty from the indictment against Zacarias Moussaoui, whose trial has been pending for 21 months in the Eastern District of Virginia, in Alexandria.

Moussaoui was jailed on an immigration violation a month before September 11. He had filed a motion to question Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, who is considered the mastermind of the September 11 attacks; his key planner, Ramzi Binalshibh; and Mustafa Ahmed al-Hawsawi, a suspected paymaster for al Qaeda.

The prosecutors opposed letting Moussaoui depose detainees and defied Brinkema's order to make them available, saying such actions would disrupt their interrogations and subvert the president's constitutional powers as commander-in-chief to conduct the war on terrorism.

The sanctions were not as serious as dismissing the whole indictment, but the ruling was a blow to the government's case.

Brinkema stayed her order pending an appeals court review.

The judge had said the videotaped depositions from the three detainees were necessary for Moussaoui to have a fair trial, in part because classified summaries of their testimony indicate that they could exonerate Moussaoui of the most serious charges against him -- that he had a role in the September 11 conspiracy, which he denies -- or could spare him the death penalty.

The government's refusal of orders to produce the witnesses forced the judge to impose Thursday's sanctions.

Indicted in the only U.S. case arising from the September 11 attacks, Moussaoui has denied charges that he conspired with the hijackers who carried out the plot.

Moussaoui, 35, a French citizen of Moroccan descent, acknowledges belonging to al Qaeda and intending to participate in a post-September 11 plot outside the United States.

Prosecutors have alleged in closed court hearings that Moussaoui, who attended two flight schools in the United States in 2001 but failed to obtain a pilot's license, wanted to crash a jetliner into the White House.

#5 RocketMan Tex, Oct 2, 2003
Troy McClure Member

Joined:

Jan 13, 2003

Messages:

655

Likes Received:

0

I am against the death penalty. But since most are not and we still use it (frequently , even for mentally ill people) why would it not be used on a man involved in the murder of 3,000 innocent people ?

#6 Troy McClure, Oct 2, 2003
SamFisher Member

Joined:

Apr 14, 2003

Messages:

61,885

Likes Received:

41,410

Originally posted by ima_drummer2k
GV, if this scumbag is found guilty of being one of the plotters of 9/11, would you not wish the death penalty on him? I'm not trying to be smart, just curious.
Click to expand...

FWIW, the accounts I have read about the trial indicate that it is a farce, which is why the judge is having such a hard time. Moussaoui, who is representing himself, is legally sane, but practically not, as he tends to make bizarre rambling motions scribbled onto notebook paper as his defense.

The theory, propounded in articles that I have read (a New Yorker one from some time ago), and has allegedly been corroborated by captured AlQ guys, is that Moussaoui wanted to be part of AlQ and the hijackings but wasn't allowed to be b/c AlQ thought he was nuts and didn't want anything to do with him.

#7 SamFisher, Oct 2, 2003

GreenVegan76 Member

Joined:

May 14, 2003

Messages:

3,336

Likes Received:

1

Originally posted by Trader_Jorge
He can look forward to a life in solitary confinement in a federal prison. He will need to be isolated or else he will surely be targeted by other inmates eager to inflict a little Texas Justice. Enjoy those 50 years in the hole, Zac!
Click to expand...

Amen to that. That's justice enough for me!

#8 GreenVegan76, Oct 2, 2003
GreenVegan76 Member

Joined:

May 14, 2003

Messages:

3,336

Likes Received:

1

Originally posted by ima_drummer2k
GV, if this scumbag is found guilty of being one of the plotters of 9/11, would you not wish the death penalty on him? I'm not trying to be smart, just curious.
Click to expand...

I don't wish death on anyone.

I hope this guy rots in prison the rest of his miserable life, but taking his life isn't the answer to any rational question.

#9 GreenVegan76, Oct 2, 2003
SamFisher Member

Joined:

Apr 14, 2003

Messages:

61,885

Likes Received:

41,410

Originally posted by SamFisher
FWIW, the accounts I have read about the trial indicate that it is a farce, which is why the judge is having such a hard time. Moussaoui, who is representing himself, is legally sane, but practically not, as he tends to make bizarre rambling motions scribbled onto notebook paper as his defense.

The theory, propounded in articles that I have read (a New Yorker one from some time ago), and has allegedly been corroborated by captured AlQ guys, is that Moussaoui wanted to be part of AlQ and the hijackings but wasn't allowed to be b/c AlQ thought he was nuts and didn't want anything to do with him.
Click to expand...

Editing my statement, he is technically represented by 2 lawyers as the judge wouldn't let him represent himself, but he wouldn't cooperate with them in his defense until recently.

#10 SamFisher, Oct 2, 2003
RocketMan Tex Member

Joined:

Feb 15, 1999

Messages:

18,452

Likes Received:

119

Originally posted by SamFisher
The theory, propounded in articles that I have read (a New Yorker one from some time ago), and has allegedly been corroborated by captured AlQ guys, is that Moussaoui wanted to be part of AlQ and the hijackings but wasn't allowed to be b/c AlQ thought he was nuts and didn't want anything to do with him.
Click to expand...

Now that is a Mel Brooks/Farrelly Brothers movie just itching to be made!!!

If a terrorist organization full of nuts like Al Qaeda thinks you are nuts, you truly must be nutsy-parker with a capital N!

#11 RocketMan Tex, Oct 2, 2003
SamFisher Member

Joined:

Apr 14, 2003

Messages:

61,885

Likes Received:

41,410

Here is the scoop, the long running dispute is that the Gov't is presenting evidence against Moussaoui supposedly from Ramsi Binshalibh, one of the Al Q captives. Moussaoui wants to cross examine him , as is guaranteed by the 6th Amendment in criminal trials, but the Gov't refuses to produce him. So the judge sanctioned the prosecution for it.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/10/02/moussaoui.sanctions/index.html

#12 SamFisher, Oct 2, 2003
GreenVegan76 Member

Joined:

May 14, 2003

Messages:

3,336

Likes Received:

1

Originally posted by SamFisher
Here is the scoop, the long running dispute is that the Gov't is presenting evidence against Moussaoui supposedly from Ramsi Binshalibh, one of the Al Q captives. Moussaoui wants to cross examine him , as is guaranteed by the 6th Amendment in criminal trials, but the Gov't refuses to produce him. So the judge sanctioned the prosecution for it.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/10/02/moussaoui.sanctions/index.html
Click to expand...

Wow, I hadn't heard that. Weird stuff. Glad the judge is keeping justice blind and making everybody play by the same rules. Good to see.

#13 GreenVegan76, Oct 2, 2003

bnb Member

Joined:

Jul 7, 2002

Messages:

6,992

Likes Received:

316

Originally posted by GreenVegan76
I don't wish death on anyone.

I hope this guy rots in prison the rest of his miserable life, but taking his life isn't the answer to any rational question.
Click to expand...

I'll second that.

Especially the bolded bit.

#14 bnb, Oct 2, 2003
SamFisher Member

Joined:

Apr 14, 2003

Messages:

61,885

Likes Received:

41,410

Originally posted by GreenVegan76
Wow, I hadn't heard that. Weird stuff. Glad the judge is keeping justice blind and making everybody play by the same rules. Good to see.
Click to expand...

From slate:

Ashcroft's Folly
How the attorney general lost the Moussaoui trial before it began.
By Dahlia Lithwick
Posted Thursday, July 24, 2003, at 1:36 PM PT

From the get-go, the trial of so-called "20th hijacker" Zacarias Moussaoui has been hamstrung by a Justice Department that seemingly wanted one prosecution to serve half a dozen irreconcilable ends. With a single deft trial, Attorney General John Ashcroft had hoped to avenge the evil of Sept. 11 for all Americans, while showcasing the even-handedness of the American justice system for the rest of the world. He wanted to soothe us with proven legal truths: He did it, and he paid for it with his life. And Ashcroft thought he could demonstrate to terrorists everywhere that transparency and due process would triumph over theocracy and prejudice. But as this prosecution unravels, indecision on the part of the Justice Department reveals nothing less than the government's own lack of faith in the courts.

Moussaoui—intent on defending himself—undid the government by using transparency and due process to embarrass the prosecution and allegedly compromise national security. The man refused to go quietly, insisting on challenging the evidence against him and exercising his full range of rights as a criminal defendant. The prosecution—applying a broad new theory of conspiracy law—didn't help matters by filing an indictment shot through with circumstantial evidence and unsupported speculation. And so Moussaoui, considered nuttier than a Snickers bar when this trial began almost a year ago, suddenly looks like a Jeremiah. His ongoing contention—that the proceedings are nothing more than a "death show trial" jiggered to result in his execution—suddenly looks to be true.

Continue Article

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

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

The latest wrinkle in the Moussaoui trial—the Justice Department's categorical refusal to comply with Judge Leonie Brinkema's Jan. 31 order allowing Moussaoui to depose captured al-Qaida commander and alleged 9/11 mastermind Ramzi Binalshibh—merely confirms that Justice has lost its way altogether. Unsure what this prosecution is supposed to stand for, they have settled into a pointless standoff. Because the government simply refuses to produce the witness as required under the Sixth Amendment, Judge Brinkema will impose sanctions next week that could range from striking counts from the indictment, removing the possibility of the death penalty, or dismissing the case altogether. Brinkema's prior orders demonstrate her belief that the federal government shouldn't have brought this case if it didn't intend to afford the defendant his basic constitutional rights.

It's widely agreed that virtually any sanction imposed by Brinkema will lead the government to remove the Moussaoui prosecution to a closed military tribunal. The government might appeal Brinkema's sanctions to the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals before that happens—but that conservative court has already refused to assist the prosecutors on the Binalshibh issue. It's unclear how the trial could proceed if the government blocks Moussaoui from deposing the one witness known to have exculpatory testimony. (Binalshibh has reportedly told interrogators that Moussaoui was simply too goony and unpredictable to be trusted for the 9/11 plot, which would seem to spell the end of the prosecution's case.) The Justice Department now claims that the Sixth Amendment does not extend to enemy combatants held overseas—a novel argument with little support in the case law.

So the judge and prosecutors are trapped in a game of chicken: Prosecutors want the judge to do something that would force them to remove the proceedings to a closed tribunal while pinning the blame on her. Brinkema wants the government to do something that will make it impossible for the trial to proceed. Ultimately, neither wants to be held responsible for what will be perceived as the crushing failure of the U.S. justice system.

The question remains: If the inevitable end to this waiting game is that Moussaoui is carted off to a military brig, where he will be tried and likely executed with limited rights and no appeal, why did Ashcroft bring this criminal case in the first place? Was it misguided optimism, or did he cynically believe that he could provide an open criminal trial without affording the defendant basic rights? Why wasn't Ashcroft content to charge Moussaoui with the crimes he's admitted, such as being a member of al-Qaida who was training to kill Americans? Why did they prosecute him as the "20th hijacker" when there has never been any evidence that he was? If the feds genuinely believed Moussaoui was a key 9/11 player, wouldn't they have plea-bargained with him for every name and detail of the plot and gone after everyone involved? Wouldn't it make sense to use Moussaoui to convict known mastermind Binalshibh, for example—land the big fish and free the hapless goof?

Perhaps most crucially, why is it that the attorney general has such grievous doubts about the justice system that he refuses to allow Moussaoui to depose Binalshibh? Throughout this trial, national security has clashed with legal due process—but Binalshibh should not have been the issue to scuttle the trial. The DOJ excuse—that allowing Moussaoui to depose his witness poses a blanket threat to national security—rings hollow. For one thing, the prosecution has already proffered to Moussaoui much of the information Binalshibh would provide in a written document. For another, Brinkema ordered that Moussaoui could only conduct a videotaped deposition of Binalshibh via secure hookup with a built-in time delay, so prosecutors could shut things down if secret messages were being passed. And if Moussaoui and Binalshibh are both poised to be locked up (or worse) for life, then why are we so terrified of the possibility that they might pass information back and forth? What is Ashcroft really afraid of here?

That depends on why this case went to trial in the first place. If Ashcroft really wanted to showcase the U.S. court system for the world, allowing Moussaoui to depose exculpatory witnesses would have been crucial. If Ashcroft really wanted to bring the 20th hijacker to justice, he would never have filed this case in the first place: Moussaoui just isn't the guy. If Ashcroft wanted a scapegoat—someone to offer the nation closure, à la Tim McVeigh—Moussaoui would have been tried secretly before a tribunal and would likely be dead by now. And if Ashcroft truly wanted to know details about al-Qaida operations in the United States, Moussaoui would be detained as an enemy combatant, interrogated till his head popped off, and locked away for life.

The truth behind the utter failure of the Moussaoui trial will not be that the U.S. court system was inadequate to the task of convicting a terrorist but that the attorney general had insufficient faith in the system to let it do its work. By bringing bogus charges, making grandiose claims, and standing in the way of anything resembling a fair trial, the government has proved that you can't stage a mockery of a trial and expect real justice to result.
Click to expand...

#15 SamFisher, Oct 2, 2003
GreenVegan76 Member

Joined:

May 14, 2003

Messages:

3,336

Likes Received:

1

Great link, Sam Fisher. Excellent background.

I'm not defending all the judge's actions -- just the one that forced the prosecution to produce a witness.

I'm curious why this trial isn't getting more media attention? I mean, this is a pretty big deal.

#16 GreenVegan76, Oct 2, 2003
glynch Member

Joined:

Dec 1, 2000

Messages:

18,087

Likes Received:

3,605

If my understanding is correct...

The Judge is trying to protect the trial. It looks to me like Moussai sp? has a good chance on appeal. The government is not allowing him to cross examine a potentially helpful witness, even though the Judge ordered it.

It is basically prosecutorial extreme misbehavior. The prosecutors, and perhaps Ashcroft himself should be held in contempt and incarcerated over this till the matter is resolved.

This is another poster child case as to why Ashcroft and Bush don't believe in the Constitution and are menaces to our system of government.

I know everything changed on 911, but until the Constitution is changed you still have the right to trial by jury and to bring forward witnesses who are in your favor. Sorry Ashcroft.

#17 glynch, Oct 2, 2003
glynch Member

Joined:

Dec 1, 2000

Messages:

18,087

Likes Received:

3,605

Here's some more explanation. It is really a travesty that Ashcroft just doesn't want to follow the Constitution regrading criminals, even those accused of terrorism. As we have seen they are using this type of concept on non-terrorists.
****

Advertisement

Real Estate

Spotlight on...
Golf Properties
Live right on the green......

Hamptons Homes
Montauk, Easthampton, more...

• Search Other Areas

In Setback to U.S., Judge Refuses to Drop Moussaoui Case
By KIRK SEMPLE

Published: October 2, 2003

ARTICLE TOOLS

E-Mail This Article
Printer-Friendly Format
Most E-Mailed Articles
Reprints & Permissions

TIMES NEWS TRACKER

Topics
Alerts

Moussaoui, Zacarias

Decisions and Verdicts

Justice Department

federal judge handed the United States government a huge setback today by ruling that prosecutors can not make any allegations that Zacarias Moussaoui was linked to the terrorist attacks on Sept. 11, 2001.

The judge, Leonie M. Brinkema of Federal District Court in Alexandria, Va., also barred the government from seeking the death penalty for Mr. Moussaoui.

Judge Brinkema was responding to the government's refusal to obey her order to allow the defense to have access to captured members of Al Qaeda.

"It would simply be unfair to require Moussaoui to defend against such prejudicial accusations while being denied the ability to present testimony from witnesses who could assist him in contradicting those accusations," the judge said in her opinion.

Mr. Moussaoui is accused of participating in a broad conspiracy to commit terrorism against the United States, including the Sept. 11 attacks. He is the only person charged in an American court with conspiring in the terrorist attacks. The Justice Department has said that the government could not produce captured Qaeda witnesses, even those who might have helped direct Mr. Moussaoui's actions, because of the possible public disclosure of classified information.

Judge Brinkema said her decision today would not take effect until the government has had a chance to appeal, which the government was certain to do quickly. The next stop could be Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, in Richmond, Va.

Paul J. McNulty, the United States Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, said prosecutors were studying the opinion "to determine how best to proceed." An appeal to the Fourth Circuit was a possibility, as was a Justice Department move to transfer the case to a military tribunal, another option that has been considered.

Mr. McNulty said "the interests of justice" required that the government be allowed to prove the full scope of the conspiracy. "We continue to believe that the 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," Mr. McNulty said.

But court-appointed lawyers for Mr. Moussaoui argued, and the judge agreed, that the prisoners Mr. McNulty referred to might be able to offer testimony showing that the defendant had no part in the conspiracy.

The judge's ruling came as a surprise to both the prosecution and the defense because both sides had been anticipating that the judge would dismiss the indictment.

The Justice Department announced last week that it would not object if Judge Brinkema dismissed the indictment. Prosecutors had said that throwing out the charges would be the quickest route to intervention by an appellate court on the witness-access issue. But legal analysts say that in light of today's ruling, prosecutors might have a harder time persuading an appeals court to overrule Judge Brinkema on the witnesses issue.

"The unprecedented investment of both human and material resources in this case mandates the careful consideration of some sanction other than dismissal," the judge said. "Finding that this case can be resolved in an open and public forum, the court concludes that the interests of justice would not be well served by dismissal."

link

#18 glynch, Oct 3, 2003

Murdock Member

Joined:

Nov 25, 2002

Messages:

180

Likes Received:

2

Okay, Let me get this straight.. is this Moussaoui an American Citizen?

#19 Murdock, Oct 3, 2003
HayesStreet Member

Joined:

Oct 1, 1999

Messages:

8,507

Likes Received:

181

Originally posted by Murdock
Okay, Let me get this straight.. is this Moussaoui an American Citizen?
Click to expand...

Exactly. No viable reason this guy gets ANY Constitutional protection. In fact, long standing doctrine (see Verdugo-Urquidez, Kerr-Frisbee Doctrine, Achille Lauro hijackers -don't remember the court case) says they DON'T get these protections when they are not US citizens.

#20 HayesStreet, Oct 3, 2003

(You must log in or sign up to post here.)

Page 1 of 2

Share This Page