# Moussaoui vs. The US Government: the government is losing. **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [October 3, 2003, 12:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/moussaoui-vs-the-us-government-the-government-is-losing/205230 "2003-10-03T00:22:04Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 12\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2003, 12:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/moussaoui-vs-the-us-government-the-government-is-losing/205230/1 "2003-10-03T00:22:04Z")
[Fox News](http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,98929,00.html) > [@](#): > > ALEXANDRIA, Va. — In a stunning setback for the government’s only criminal case from the Sept. 11 attacks, a federal judge on Thursday barred prosecutors from seeking the death penalty for Zacarias Moussaoui (search) and prohibited any use of evidence linking him to the terrorist strike. > > U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema (search) handed down the sanctions in response to the government’s refusal to obey her orders granting Moussaoui access to three Al Qaeda prisoners that he claimed would testify he was not involved in the Sept. 11 attacks. She rejected the more severe option of dismissing all charges, as the government, Moussaoui and his court-appointed lawyers had asked. 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: > [@](#): > > The Bush administration could decide to move Moussaoui’s case to a military tribunal, where national security would likely trump a defendant’s access to witnesses. However, that decision would likely be made only after the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals (search), in Richmond, Va. ruled on the witness-access issue. The side that loses in the appellate court could ask the Supreme Court to intervene. 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. > [@](#): > > Prosecutors argued that interrupting their interrogations would be a sensitive matter for the United States, because intelligence officials are learning valuable information about Al Qaeda’s operations. 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? > [@](#): > > Mohammed, for instance, told U.S. officials the Sept. 11 plot was five years in the making and that a wave of homicide attacks was supposed to follow, The Associated Press reported after reviewing interrogation reports. 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? ---
**Author:** ![manhattan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/manhattan/32/7_2.png) [@manhattan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/manhattan)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2003, 12:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/moussaoui-vs-the-us-government-the-government-is-losing/205230/2 "2003-10-03T00:36:46Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Diogenes the Cynic \* > \*\* 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? \*\* 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. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2003, 1:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/moussaoui-vs-the-us-government-the-government-is-losing/205230/3 "2003-10-03T01:00:25Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2003, 1:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/moussaoui-vs-the-us-government-the-government-is-losing/205230/4 "2003-10-03T01:24:38Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Diogenes the Cynic \* > Here’s the deabate: Should Moussaoui have the right to call captured al Qaeda prisoners in his own 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 not, should the government have the right to drop the civilian charges and stage a secret miltary tribunal instead? 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. - Rick ---
**Author:** ![Boyo\_Jim](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/87869e/32.png) [@Boyo\_Jim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Boyo_Jim)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2003, 1:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/moussaoui-vs-the-us-government-the-government-is-losing/205230/5 "2003-10-03T01:36:09Z")
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. 1. Moussaoui is representing himself, and “questioning” the other captives could easily devolve into an anti-American dialog on why America really dies deserve destruction. 2. 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. 3. Other details about the attack might result in desclosures making law enforcement seem even more stupid than previously thought. ---
**Author:** ![Cheesesteak](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cheesesteak/32/3694_2.png) [@Cheesesteak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cheesesteak)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2003, 3:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/moussaoui-vs-the-us-government-the-government-is-losing/205230/6 "2003-10-03T03:38:03Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Diogenes the Cynic \* > **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?** Well, one COULD argue that the interrogations provided information that helped prevent the attacks. But that would just be silly. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2003, 4:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/moussaoui-vs-the-us-government-the-government-is-losing/205230/7 "2003-10-03T04:06:08Z")
Yes it would be. There is no evidence that any such attacks have been “thwarted” or even planned. ---
**Author:** ![Brutus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/91b2a8/32.png) [@Brutus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Brutus)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2003, 4:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/moussaoui-vs-the-us-government-the-government-is-losing/205230/8 "2003-10-03T04:54:33Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Diogenes the Cynic \* > \*\*Yes it would be. There is no evidence that any such attacks have been “thwarted” or even planned. \*\* [Not true.](http://www.nctimes.net/news/2002/20021215/60653.html) ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2003, 5:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/moussaoui-vs-the-us-government-the-government-is-losing/205230/9 "2003-10-03T05:53:02Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![PatriotX](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/c4cdca/32.png) [@PatriotX](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PatriotX)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2003, 11:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/moussaoui-vs-the-us-government-the-government-is-losing/205230/10 "2003-10-03T11:12:58Z")
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? ---
**Author:** ![plnnr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/7ea924/32.png) [@plnnr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/plnnr)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2003, 1:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/moussaoui-vs-the-us-government-the-government-is-losing/205230/11 "2003-10-03T13:00:11Z")
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. Not a good showing by the Justice Department. ---
**Author:** ![Cheesesteak](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cheesesteak/32/3694_2.png) [@Cheesesteak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cheesesteak)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2003, 1:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/moussaoui-vs-the-us-government-the-government-is-losing/205230/12 "2003-10-03T13:09:48Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Diogenes the Cynic \* > \*\*Yes it would be. There is no evidence that any such attacks have been “thwarted” or even planned. \*\* 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.