…change if Moussaui gets off on technicality?
The recent witness tampering scandal in the only trial to occur in the wake of the attacks of the 11th of September allows the possibility that the case could be thrown out or that a conviction will not be forthcoming.
Will the American people suddenly go hardline again, supporting doing whatever the hell the gov wants anytime they want regarding suspected terrorists?
What does torture have to do with Moussaui’s case?
I believe the argument he’s trying to make is if Moussaui is set free on a technicality, people will lose faith in the criminal justice system as a means of dealing with terrorists. Instead, they’ll support more direct, executive, war-like actions.
Having said that, I don’t think anyone’s mind is going to change on torture based solely on Moussaui. First, he’s not likely to be set free on a technicality like “improper coaching of a witness.” Second, people’s minds seem pretty made up on the issue of torture. Third, if Moussaui goes free, I think people are more likely to blame the govenrment as a whole, rather than want to give them broader powers.
Correct me if I am wrong but I think all that this trial is about is whether Moussaui get the death penalty or life in prison without parole. I hardly think that the latter qualifies as “getting off”.
Oliver North, to name one example, really did get off on a technicality…and yet I don’t think that affected most people’s opinions on the use of torture.
Mine . . . but only in a case-specific sense.
Since when is the right to a fair trial considered a “technicality”? 
That indeed is the essence of my gist…
It’s not that this current snafu will end the trial all by itself. It just calls to mind that we are dealing with an imperfect justice system here, and I was wondering what happens if the only person standing trial accused of a connection with 9/11 gets off on a technicality? Or the trial ends some other way that miht not be satisfactory to a lot of people.
Given that M.'s actual connection to the attacks is, IIRC, dubious at best, I would hope that a non-conviction result would not engender an extreme reaction, but you never know any more, do you? I’d hate to see public pressure ease up on scrutinizing Gitmo and other problem spots because of this case.
I wasn’t aware of that. I confess after hearing sometime in the last couple of years that he may not be as well-connected as he was originally touted as being, I lost track of the case.
I like the idea of a fair trial, but news coverage I’ve seen of the witness tampering business is announcing it as “the only trial of a 9/11 conspirator” to take place. I would like to think no one would swallow such blatant fear-mongering, but what I’ve watched people swallow over the last few years leads me to fear otherwise.
I think it’s more likely to boomerang against the government. They had this case sewn up and then they screwed it up.
As opposed to what?
Did the American people suddenly turn against torture when I wasn’t looking ?
Details about Massoui:
-he entered the USA illegally-several times
-he was funded by Al-Queda (a terrorist organization that murdered 3600 Americans)
-he admitted that he was trained to fly planes into buildings
-he is unrepentent and has expresssed his wish to murder Americans
Anything NOT clear? Why is there any doubt? isn’t conspiracy a crime?
I’d like to see the judge that sets this slime free, having to FACE the families of the murder victims.
justice, my ass!
Interviews with 9/11 families observing the proceedings make clear that they blame the government for screwing up the case, not the judge who is enforcing the rule of law. :rolleyes:
Um, guys? The man has already been convicted. The only thing left to settle is whether he gets the death penalty or life in prison without possibility of parole. No judge is going to set him free, no technicality is going to set him free, because he’s already been found guilty and we’re just litigating his punishment.
It is possible that a judge will disallow the death penalty, or that a “technicality” will disallow the death penalty. I still don’t see why failing to put Moussaui to death, but instead having him rot in prison for the rest of his life, is “aiding terrorism”.
If he is released into the general population, i’m not sure he would last very long anyway.
Hopefully not too much of a hijack, but I have had thoughts of a similar vein about Gitmo.
In the future, might Gitmo not serve as an object lesson to future anti-terrorist forces. Perhaps there will be a sentiment of “who needs the PR backlash? Throw these guys in a hole!” IOW, there will be no move to open up proceedings and give terrorism suspects due process – instead, there would be a move to either commit summary field executions or to go even deeper underground with the detentions.
True dat.
My deepest apologies, folks, my OP was made from a state of great ignorance that I remedied before work this morning, with the help of a those handmaidens of civilization, a recent newspaper and a comfy toilet seat.
I like to think I keep up at least with major headlines, but apparently I am woefully mistaken there. Friday’s LA Times informed me that Moussaui pled guilty last year, something that had completely escaped my radar until this morning. :smack:
I also have a dim memory of the case against Moussaui as an actual 9/11 conspirator being considered rather weak at some point within the last couple of years, but his guilty plea, along with facts presented in the article, lead me to a complete reversal of that assessment. The guy is guilty as sin, IMO. :smack: :smack:
I know a captain ought to go down with his ship, but I ain’t no captain. I’m abandoning thread, and invite you all to do the same.