The government wants to violate Moussaoui’s constitutional rights by refusing to allow him to call witnesses in his defense. The judge is right to sanction them now in this way. The government is now barred from making any allegations in court that Moussaoui had anything to do with the 9/11 attacks and i say bully for her.
This is the really scary part:
In other words, if that pesky Constitution gets in their way, they’ll just have a secret little military “trial” followed by a quick execution. With a military tribunal the government doesn’t have to deal with the outrage of a defendant actually defending himself nor do they have to actually prove anything in public.
This is complete horseshit, of course, they’ve learned nothing “valuable” to this point, are we really supposed to believe they’re on the verge of a breakthrough?
By “homicide attacks” I suppose they mean suicide attacks (this is the Fox site, after all) but I haven’t seen any such attacks materialize in the last two years, so how valuable could these interrogations really be?
Here’s the deabate: Should Moussaoui have the right to call captured al Qaeda prisoners in his own defense?
If not, should the government have the right to drop the civilian charges and stage a secret miltary tribunal instead?
Leaving aside the answers to your questions (OK, you asked and I answer – yes, he should and no, they shouldn’t without due process – the approval of an appeals court under laws existing at the time he was arrested), I have to point out that this is maybe the stupidest statement ever converted into pixels.
My point is that as an example of “valuable” information produced by interrogations, the best the government can produce is warnings of suicide attacks that haven’t happened. If false information is their best information then how can it be argued that these interrogations have been fruitful? It’s been two years now. I frankly don’t believe that the government has gotten, or is on the verge of getting anything important out of those prisoners. Even if they did know something two years ago, none of that would be useful or pertinent any more.
Mostly, I just don’t buy it as an excuse to prevent Moussaoui from calling witnesses in his defense.
Assuming he makes a proffer that shows the witness has some material testimony, then he must be allowed to call the witness. He cannot, of course, simply call people on a fishing expedition, but if he can show that the witness has information that affects his case, he is entitled to call the witness.
That preliminary judgement is made by the judge, and it sounds as though that’s exactly what’s happened here.
If the military tribunal is legal, and jeopardy has not attached, then yes, the government should have that right. If jeopardy has attached, then I feel as though a military tribunal is not appropriate; the government had a choice, and chose to pursue the criminal path.
Most administrations tend to blur the line between “national security”, and their real fear, “national embarassment.” The feds imagine several possible scenarios resulting from such testimonies, and none of them are very attractive.
Moussaoui is representing himself, and “questioning” the other captives could easily devolve into an anti-American dialog on why America really dies deserve destruction.
Their (the other captives) information would presumably back up Moussaoui. As seemingly the only remaining live person to plausibly charge for 9/11, the feds are absolutely desperate to exclude any exculpatory evidence.
Other details about the attack might result in desclosures making law enforcement seem even more stupid than previously thought.
That’s a rather specious cite for several reasons. It does not give any details as to what attacks have been thwarted and why. There is no information about arrests. Most of the so called planned attacks were not planned on US soil. There is no assertion that these attacks had anything to do with al Qaeda or that they were 'thwarted" by information provided by Moussaoui.
It sounds like bullshit propaganda to me.
Moussaoui’s case, IIRC, is that yes, he was a part of al Qaeda, yes he planned terrorist attacks, but no, he wasn’t involved in the 9-11 plot that he’s charged with.
Who’d be able to testify as to what his aQ duties were, but aQ members?
I’ve been following this case here in Richmond (home of the 4th Circuit and the scene of any appeals before it gets to the Supremes), and have been amazed at how the Keystone Kops have bungled this whole affair.
This was supposed to be the prosecution that showed how quickly, efficiently, and fairly the government could deal with terrorist-related offenses. Instead, Moussaoui and his public defenders have out manuvered and out argued the government at every turn.
Right, and since about 3 computers got fouled up in the Year 2000 thing, all the money spent to ‘fix’ the computers was wasted.
Look, I’m not saying you’re wrong, but neither of us knows a damn thing about whether or not the lack of attacks is a result of good defense or bad offense. You claimed the interrogations were valueless, and have zero basis for that claim.