Suppose Person A is arrested for conspiracy to commit murder and the
authorities are very sure A did just that.  Sometime after A's arrest but
before the trial, Person B is arrested in a different jurisdiction for
murder.  A says B has exculpatory evidence related to A's alleged crime.  A
(or A's legal team) has the right to question B, right?

OK, in the case I'm referring to, A is Zacarias Moussaoui, who is suspected
by prosecutors would have been the twentieth 9/11 hijacker if he hadn't been
arrested three weeks earlier.

And B is Ramzi bin al-Shaiba, a presumed organizer of the attacks arrested
in Pakistan in September 2002 and held by US authorities at a secret
location.

Moussaoui maintains that members have al Qaeda have irrefutable proof that
he was not planned to be the 20th hijacker.  His attorneys maintain that
Shaiba may be able to provide this proof.  They want to interrogate Shaibe
by closed circuit television.  The prosecutors don't want this to happen.
In fact, the Justice Department  threatens to deem Moussaoui an "enemy
combatant" which would allow him to be moved to a military court for a
private trial, and consequently avoid testimony by Shaiba.

OK, Moussaoui is the scum of the earth.  After all, his alibi is that he was
planned to take part in a terrorist attack after Sept. 11, which means he
couldn't have been planned to be one of the hijackers.  He should be
convicted of what crimes he committed and punished to the full extent of the
law.

*But* I want the real architects of 9/11 to be tried, conveicted and
punished, not just whatever scumbags happen to be handy.  And this business
about moving him to a militay court so that other al Qaeda members can't
testify makes me nervous.  Maybe that's because I'm old enough to remember
the Chicago Seven trial.

At any rate, what do you all think?

Anny

It sounds fishy. Proving a negative is always a dodgy proposition. What is
this 'proof'? If 'B' is going to say 'yes I am a terrorist and member of Al
Qaida but B is not one of us' it isn't going to help. And it certainly isn't
'proof'. If A is going to say 'Yes I am a member of Al Qaida. I have in my
possession a list of the 24 people we pencilled in to accomplish the hijack.
You will see that five names are crossed out. These include B. The 19 names
that are not crossed out correspond with the people you know to have been
the hijackers. QED' that isn't going to help either.
Even if A so testified, the prosecution just have to ask 'Did you know all
members of Al Qaida and all plans that were made?' - Answer 'No' and the
testimony is out the window anyway.

As for 'deeming him an enemy combatant' that is, as it always has been, a
crock of shit. It's not a status recognised by the Geneva Conventions and,
anyway, either you are or you aren't. If Justice haven't identified him as
such by now it's pure hypocrisy to suddenly do it. But then the whole
Guantanamo business is extra-legal. Witness the quiet but steady release of
detainees without even a charge against them, let alone a trial. There are
children in there, there are senile old men and not a one can so much as
talk to a lawyer.
You will never get justice for 9/11. The best you could settle for is
revenge.
--
John Dean
Oxford
De-frag to reply

: You will never get justice for 9/11. The best you could settle for is
: revenge.

The idea of 'justice' for suicide bombers is a weird bird. So we've
rounded up 600-odd bad guys and given 'em tiny beachhouses in Cuba, and
invaded two countries and toppled their regimes, killing umpty-thousand
people of Schrodinger's innocence-or-guilt in the process. What do we have
now? No Osama, no Saddam, and a couple army divisions that are stuck on
the other side of the planet for the forseeable future.

Is that justice? I'm not sure. Is that revenge? Dunno. Is that a
disincentive for other nutbags to blow themselves up at us? Probably not.
Was any of that a wise thing? Is it really going to promote peace?

And, knowing how a bunch of folks will answer those last two questions,
to them I say: What do you suggest? So George W. Bush is a monkey. In his
position, what do you do?

--
Huey

In article <qjMHa.4369$87.3062...@newssrv26.news.prodigy.com>, "Anny Middon"

In jurisprudence your question is related to the case of partners, Mr. A and
Mr. P, who own a brewery.  A offers to buy out P who refuses.  In a fit of
pique A decides to undermine the business by consuming the product.  He
proceeeds to drink a large amount of the daily output of the brewery.  The
legal question becomes,  is A  liable to P?

Les

"Gary S. Callison" <h...@interaccess.com> wrote in message
news:dYNHa.1421$XV2.503261@dca1-nnrp1.news.algx.net...

Vote for Homer Simpson, who I see has defeated GWB as the most popular
American in a poll over here in the UK.

Chris Greville
--
The damn monkey gibbering and screeching
used to keep me up at night, although in the last week or so it's pretty
much tailed off to nothing. The smell has gotten noticeably worse in the
last couple of days, too.
The next time I get a barrel full of monkeys, I'm going to try taking the
lid off.
Groo, AFCA

I think this is very much an example of punishing *anyone* beccause emotions
run so high when we think of 9/11. The authorities want *someone* in jail -
someone we can point a finger at and say "see - we got him!" And that is
unlikely to happen when all the real perps are dead. So - the police will
then broaden the net - and get somebody to take their place. Someone *else*
has to pay.

To see how ridiculous this can all get - google on Hank Carr and Bernice
Bowen.

This was a case in Tampa - and emotions ran plenty high. Carr accidentally
shot the 4 year old son of his girlfriend, Bernice Bowen. When the police
came to investigate, they arrested Carr. But Carr escaped using a hidden
handcuff key and killed the two detectives. On the run, he assassinated a
State trooper and then held up a highway convenience store, taking a
pregnant young store clerk as hostage. It all ended when Carr turned his gun
on himself as SWAT teams took the building.

Five people were now dead. With Carr no longer alive, who would be held
responsible? Bowen was charged as an accessory to murder after the fact for
failing to cooperate with law enforcement officials during their pursuit of
Carr. How did she "fail to cooperate"? She didn't tell the police that Hank
Carr used another name as an alias sometimes. And for this she was charged
with "murder after the fact".

But - *Someone* had to be put in jail for all those dead people - and Carr
had conveniently killed himself.

That's justice for ya.

--
Kim

*Change is good. Especially when it's a change back to the way I liked
it in the first place. (Marshall Gatten)*

news:bco8pb$jvo$1@news7.svr.pol.co.uk...

You're absolutely right that whatever proof A or B might have is dodgy.  But
their legal teams are allowed to interrogate each other for this proof in
other cases, where the proof is going to be equally dodgy, I'd think.  With
the proper safeguards I don't think they should be prevented in this case --
if the right is there, it's there.

I don't think we can get revenge.  We can't seem to find bin Laden or most
of the rest of his crew.  To kill a bunch of Afghanis or Iraqis isn't
revenge, any more than it would be if Iraq bombed a US embassy in revenge
for the war.

Besides, a civilized people shouldn't be looking for revenge.

Anny

In article <dYNHa.1421$XV2.503...@dca1-nnrp1.news.algx.net>,
 h...@interaccess.com (Gary S.  Callison) wrote:

I don't invade Iraq.

How is it that of all the options he had in fighting the war on
terrorism, he chose the one that not only had little or nothing to do
with Sept. 11 or al Qaeda but also was guaranteed to do the most
collateral damage to U.S. interests?

He could have taken the money wasted in the war on Iraq and use it to
put more troops in Afghanistan to find bin Laden. He could have used
it to beef up anti-terrorism effort here in the U.S. (more money for
first responders, for security at vulnerable targets like ports, to
prepare the health-care system for biological or chemical attacks,
etc.) He could have come up with a better way to educate people than
color-coded terror alerts and a more realistic plan for people to
protect themselves than plastic sheeting and duct tape. He could have
called upon the spirit of national unity and resolve immediately after
Sept. 11 to win support for changes in U.S. policy that in the long
run would have made the country safer, such as an energy policy that
reduced or eliminated dependence on foreign oil.

He could have done a lot of things. But none of them would have given
him the opportunity to dress up in a flight suit, ride in a fighter
jet and hold a victory celebration on an aircraft carrier.
--
D.F. Manno
domma...@netscape.net
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." (Benjamin Franklin)

On Wed, 18 Jun 2003 00:39:54 +0100, "John Dean" <john-d...@frag.lineone.net>
wrote:

So far we've killed about 300 innocent people who had nothing to do with
9/11/01 (and spent $75 billion to do it) and so I guess we're just about
even-steven.

J

--
"I would have cleaned the toilets with my tongue to work in the White House."
Linda Tripp - ABC 20/20 interview
[www.bongoboy.com]

On Wed, 18 Jun 2003 12:59:55 -0400, "D.F. Manno" <domma...@netscape.net>
wrote:

Or health care, education, environmental cleanup caused by US corporations
around the world... all kinds of things that would lessen the hatred some feel
for us. But Nooooooooo. We have guns.

J

--
War is Stupid [www.bongoboy.com/peace]

On Wed, 18 Jun 2003 13:20:04 GMT "Kim" <flhnospa...@adelphia.net> wrote:

   [ snipped ]

:>This was a case in Tampa - and emotions ran plenty high. Carr accidentally
:>shot the 4 year old son of his girlfriend, Bernice Bowen. When the police
:>came to investigate, they arrested Carr. But Carr escaped using a hidden
:>handcuff key and killed the two detectives. On the run, he assassinated a
:>State trooper and then held up a highway convenience store, taking a
:>pregnant young store clerk as hostage. It all ended when Carr turned his gun
:>on himself as SWAT teams took the building.

Methinks that someone who merely "accidentally" killed would not have gone on
a murder spree to cover up the facts and get away.

   [ snipped ]

--
Binyamin Dissen <bdis...@dissensoftware.com>
http://www.dissensoftware.com

<< >|You will never get justice for 9/11. The best you could settle for is

So far we've killed about 300 innocent people who had nothing to do with
9/11/01 (and spent $75 billion to do it) and so I guess we're just about
even-steven.
 >><BR><BR>

We SHOWED THEM!!!

300?  I thought that the US combatant casualties were 200 or more.  I
thought that the innocent Iraqi death toll was several thousand.

Probably not - but the point was that *he* was the one who was guilty, not
his girlfriend. Or don't you agree?

--
Kim

*Change is good. Especially when it's a change back to the way I liked
it in the first place. (Marshall Gatten)*

On Thu, 19 Jun 2003 13:30:19 GMT "Kim" <flhnospa...@adelphia.net> wrote:

:>> On Wed, 18 Jun 2003 13:20:04 GMT "Kim" <flhnospa...@adelphia.net>

:>>>> This was a case in Tampa - and emotions ran plenty high. Carr
:>>>> accidentally shot the 4 year old son of his girlfriend, Bernice
:>>>> Bowen. When the police came to investigate, they arrested Carr. But
:>>>> Carr escaped using a hidden handcuff key and killed the two
:>>>> detectives. On the run, he assassinated a State trooper and then
:>>>> held up a highway convenience store, taking a pregnant young store
:>>>> clerk as hostage. It all ended when Carr turned his gun on himself
:>>>> as SWAT teams took the building.

:>> Methinks that someone who merely "accidentally" killed would not have
:>> gone on a murder spree to cover up the facts and get away.

:>Probably not - but the point was that *he* was the one who was guilty, not
:>his girlfriend. Or don't you agree?

Glad you climbed down from this tree.

As for the girlfriend? I will let a jury who will hear the facts make that
decision.

If she had knowledge that could have save lives but refused to give it, yes,
she should be punished.

--
Binyamin Dissen <bdis...@dissensoftware.com>
http://www.dissensoftware.com

In article <o1c2fvk9d2ti8aer85hnjv23jac3pd1...@4ax.com>,

I think a not insignificant part of the hatred stems from the fact that
we're bigger. It is not consistant with U.S. interests to do anything
about that.

--
Charles A. Lieberman    | When free speech is outlawed,
New York, New York, USA |
http://calieber.tripod.com/                     calie...@bigfoot.com

In article <had3fv84465r3lm35qv5uvprht63m3f...@4ax.com>,
 Greg Goss <go...@gossg.org> wrote:

Civilain casualties in Iraq were somewhere over 3,000.  Civilain deaths
in Afganistan were in the same range.

Now that our President has discovered that killing innocents abroad
makes him more popular at home, we can expect even more to die in the
next couple of years.

  ... Erich

Of course it is. Article 5.

      Where, in the territory of a Party to the conflict, the latter
      is satisfied that an individual protected person is definitely
      suspected of or engaged in activities hostile to the security of
      the State, such individual person shall not be entitled to claim
      such rights and privileges under the present Convention as
      would, if exercised in the favour of such individual person, be
      prejudicial to the security of such State.

      Where in occupied territory an individual protected person is
      detained as a spy or saboteur, or as a person under definite
      suspicion of activity hostile to the security of the Occupying
      Power, such person shall, in those cases where absolute military
      security so requires, be regarded as having forfeited rights of
      communication under the present Convention.

      In each case, such persons shall nevertheless be treated with
      humanity, and in case of trial, shall not be deprived of the
      rights of fair and regular trial prescribed by the present
      Convention. They shall also be granted the full rights and
      privileges of a protected person under the present Convention at
      the earliest date consistent with the security of the State or
      Occupying Power, as the case may be.

In other words it is left to the State or Power to decide.

Pierre
--
Pierre Jelenc                |    H o m e   O f f i c e   R e c o r d s
                             |         * Marwood * The Cucumbers *
  T h e   G i g o m e t e r  |     * Switchblade Kittens * Pawnshop *
    www.thegigometer.com     |         www.homeofficerecords.com