So yesterday alleged terrorist Abdelghani Mzoudi was acquitted of charges of terrorism and murder in 3000 cases of a Hamburg court.
The US department of justice is less than pleased, and so is the German minister for the interior Schilly.
The judge says, there was not enough evidence and accuses the prosecution of hiding proofs.
A victory for justice or for the bad guys?
Not neccesary an ”or” case. Perhaps it’s both.
He must have known Mohamed Atta was up to no good, when he signed that ridiculous will of his. However I must say this sentence by the judge is pretty low: “You were acquitted not because the court is convinced of your innocence, but because the evidence was not enough to convict you.” Now he, even though acquitted, has to live the burden of presumed guilt for the rest of his life – with no means of exoneration (not that I think that burdens him much). Either you convict the fellow, or you set him free. Can’t have it both ways. In any case if not put on formal trial after extradition to the US (over Morocco), I guess he’ll have to live the rest of his life looking over his shoulder, never knowing when this CIA agent will pop-up and abduct him. Go CIA!
My personal opinion. Is he guilty? Is the Pope catholic? Does Dolly Parton sleep on her back? Does Bin Laden fuck camels?
At least this suspect got a trial.
That’s what happens when trials are held: People are sometimes found not guilty, if evidence proving their guilt beyond reasonable doubt does not exist.
Inconvenient? Yes.
The basis of justice in civilised democracy? Yes also.
What I cannot fathom is the reason for the almost total embargo on the release of information that the US has gained (which led to this acquittal).
For example, Ramzi Binalshibh has been in US custody for more that sixteen months now. Surely his al-Quaida associates know that everything and everyone that he knew of must be compromised. So what would be the downside of making him available to courts?
WinstonSmith, from the BBC page you cite:
I don’t think, that he can be deported. On what charges? He can only be asked to leave the country when his permission to study runs out and is not renewed. But then he could leave to whatever country he wants to.
If the US askes him to be arested and handed over, he also can not be deported as he would face possible capital punishment in the US. By law, Germany cannot deport anyone to a country where there is capital punishment. (See the case of Metin Kaplan.)
and
This is of course crap. It shows the exact opposite. And I never heard a prosecuter (which Schulz is) saying anything like this.
…to track this bum’s future travels. The way I see it:
(1) He is of no further use to Al-Queda; in which case he probably can return to Morocco and expect to survive.
(2) He still has information on Al-Queda; in which case he probably will wind up being arrested by the Moroccan police(and possibly interrogated by the CIA/Mossad).
(3) He is still a fanatic for the cause; in which case you will see him signing up for airplane piloting lessons.
In any event, he will be watched…and if he actually knows anything, his Al-Queda brothers might well decide to off him, to prevent any leakages.
Oh Horror ! An Arab not being treated as an automatic Terrorist !
These germans are lunatics by giving him a trial at all ! Didn’t they find WMDs in his backpack ?