An Australian was captured in Afghanistan....
Alan Liefting
military as a result of a war caused by (mostly) Saudi Arabian terrorists).
Another aspect of globalisation perhaps?
Is there not some sort of international law that that forbids this sort
of action? Should the US act as judge, jury and executioner?
(figuratively speaking of course!)
Peter Metcalfe
> An Australian was captured in Afghanistan and taken to Cuba by the US
> military as a result of a war caused by (mostly) Saudi Arabian terrorists).
> Another aspect of globalisation perhaps?
> Is there not some sort of international law that that forbids this sort
> of action?
What is wrong with it? After the Second World War, an American was
captured in Germany and taken to the UK and hanged.
> Should the US act as judge, jury and executioner? (figuratively speaking
> of course!)
There's nothing inherently wrong with military tribunals and I daresay
the proposed American System is fairer than a Diplock court. The
Republic of Ireland used them to try members of the IRA (and shoot them
too) and this was in a time Ireland was not at war with anyone. Some of
the Paddies concerned were repatriated from Northern Ireland which shows
starling considering the nature of the RUC (B specials) and the Republic
(anti-British) at the time.
Looking further, I see Italy has standing military courts while
the German constitution has provision for their establishment.
--Peter Metcalfe
Alan Liefting
Peter Metcalfe wrote:
> In article <3F0E9741...@ihug.co.nz>, alie...@ihug.co.nz says...
>
>>An Australian was captured in Afghanistan and taken to Cuba by the US
>>military as a result of a war caused by (mostly) Saudi Arabian terrorists).
>
>
>>Another aspect of globalisation perhaps?
>
>
>
>>Is there not some sort of international law that that forbids this sort
>>of action?
>
>
> What is wrong with it? After the Second World War, an American was
> captured in Germany and taken to the UK and hanged.
Was he given a fair trial? It does beg the question of who is
responsible for the actions of a foreign national.
Peter Metcalfe
> Peter Metcalfe wrote:
> > In article <3F0E9741...@ihug.co.nz>, alie...@ihug.co.nz says...
> >>Is there not some sort of international law that that forbids this sort
> >>of action?
> > What is wrong with it? After the Second World War, an American was
> > captured in Germany and taken to the UK and hanged.
> Was he given a fair trial?
Yes.
> It does beg the question of who is responsible for the actions of a
> foreign national.
Why? There's nothing to stop any court from trying foreign nationals
within their jurisdiction. Some countries go as far as to assert
jurisdiction over any crime against one of their citizens no matter
where it was committed.
--Peter Metcalfe
David Pears
<metc...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>> It does beg the question of who is responsible for the actions of a
>> foreign national.
>
>Why? There's nothing to stop any court from trying foreign nationals
>within their jurisdiction. Some countries go as far as to assert
>jurisdiction over any crime against one of their citizens no matter
>where it was committed.
Belgium seems to feel they should be allowed to try people who have
committed "crimes" anywhere, no matter the nationality of the alleged
criminal or the alleged victim.
David
Barry Phease
Among the first 6 to be tried are an Australian and 2 Brits. If
convicted they could be executed, while still in Guantanamo bay. I
guess this must be payback for helping out in Iraq, but I don't quite
understand it.
It will be interesting to see what they are charged with. Of course
the restrictions on defence attorneys (vetting requirements, no
private discussions etc) practically preclude a fair trial.
--------
Barry Phease
mailto:bar...@es.co.nz"
http://homepages.ihug.co.nz/~barryp"
Peter Metcalfe
dpears...@bigfoot.com.au says...
And Belgium has been seriously toning down its law after people
started abusing it.
--Peter Metcalfe
Peter Metcalfe
says...
> It will be interesting to see what they are charged with. Of course
> the restrictions on defence attorneys (vetting requirements, no
> private discussions etc) practically preclude a fair trial.
Virtually the same restrictions were used for Richard Reid,
Zacarias Moussaoui and other terrorists.
--Peter Metcalfe
David Pears
<metc...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>> >Why? There's nothing to stop any court from trying foreign nationals
>> >within their jurisdiction. Some countries go as far as to assert
>> >jurisdiction over any crime against one of their citizens no matter
>> >where it was committed.
>
>> Belgium seems to feel they should be allowed to try people who have
>> committed "crimes" anywhere, no matter the nationality of the alleged
>> criminal or the alleged victim.
>
>And Belgium has been seriously toning down its law after people
>started abusing it.
Toning down does not equal getting rid of.
And just imagine the uproar if the US implemented a similar law. But
we don't hear anything about Belgian Arrogance, or how Belgium
deserves to be attacked by terrorists because of this arrogance.
David
Peter Metcalfe
dpears...@bigfoot.com.au says...
> >And Belgium has been seriously toning down its law after people
> >started abusing it.
> Toning down does not equal getting rid of.
The nature of the toning down is effectively just that.
> And just imagine the uproar if the US implemented a similar law.
Like the Alien Torts Act of 1789?
--Peter Metcalfe
Barry Phease
While there was little doubt about Reid's guilt, it would have been better
had he had a fair trial.
John Walker Lindh pleaded guilty, but I wonder how much evidence they had
against him. He must have got very bad advice to agree to plea bargain
giving him 20 years in prison.
Moussaoui's trial looks like
getting messy, but it looks as though he won't be able to present some
crucial evidence.
Faris pleaded guilty, again probably badly advised by his attorney.
Given the nature of the evidence against him (confessions obtained under
duress) he would probably have got off in a civilian court.
None of these inspire confidence in the process.
--
Barry Phease
Peter Metcalfe
says...
> On Sat, 12 Jul 2003 12:05:10 +1200, Peter Metcalfe wrote:
>
> > In article <3f0f328f....@news.dun.ihug.co.nz>, bar...@es.co.nz
> > says...
> > Virtually the same restrictions were used for Richard Reid,
> > Zacarias Moussaoui and other terrorists.
> While there was little doubt about Reid's guilt, it would have been better
> had he had a fair trial.
In what way was his trial not fair? His attorneys performed their
job so well that they managed to persuade a judge to drop a specific
charge under the Patriot Act that was supposedly tailormade for
his crime (interfering with mass transportation) which shows up
the real hazard of rushed legislation.
> John Walker Lindh pleaded guilty, but I wonder how much evidence they had
> against him. He must have got very bad advice to agree to plea bargain
> giving him 20 years in prison.
Given that what he had committed was effectively treason (they
couldn't actually charge him with that due to requirements for
witnesses in the US Constitution), he was facing a life sentence
without parole.
> Moussaoui's trial looks like
> getting messy, but it looks as though he won't be able to present some
> crucial evidence.
Given that he plead guilty at one stage but was allowed to withdraw it
and that his antics are responsible for much of the mess, I'm highly
skeptical of the nature of this crucial evidence.
> Faris pleaded guilty, again probably badly advised by his attorney.
> Given the nature of the evidence against him (confessions obtained
> under duress) he would probably have got off in a civilian court.
So the fact that a person pleads guilty is evidence of an
unfair trial? Yeah right.
--Peter Metcalfe
Barry Phease
> In article <pan.2003.07.12....@es.co.nz>, bar...@es.co.nz
> says...
>> On Sat, 12 Jul 2003 12:05:10 +1200, Peter Metcalfe wrote:
>>
>> > In article <3f0f328f....@news.dun.ihug.co.nz>, bar...@es.co.nz
>> > says...
>
>> > Virtually the same restrictions were used for Richard Reid,
>> > Zacarias Moussaoui and other terrorists.
>
>> While there was little doubt about Reid's guilt, it would have been better
>> had he had a fair trial.
>
> In what way was his trial not fair? His attorneys performed their
> job so well that they managed to persuade a judge to drop a specific
> charge under the Patriot Act that was supposedly tailormade for
> his crime (interfering with mass transportation) which shows up
> the real hazard of rushed legislation.
He pleaded guilty so it doesn't come up. His original confession was made
under the influence of drugs given him by police.
>
>> John Walker Lindh pleaded guilty, but I wonder how much evidence they had
>> against him. He must have got very bad advice to agree to plea bargain
>> giving him 20 years in prison.
>
> Given that what he had committed was effectively treason (they
> couldn't actually charge him with that due to requirements for
> witnesses in the US Constitution), he was facing a life sentence
> without parole.
Why was it treason? There is no law against US citizens joinging foreign
armies and they have non-US citizens in their own. If their generals
order them to fight against their own countrymen they just do as they are
ordered. That is not treason.
He effectively got the maximum penalty available. What sort of a plea
bargain is that? Also the charge "assisting the Taleban" is rather
obscure and there would have been good ground for challenging it.
>
>> Moussaoui's trial looks like
>> getting messy, but it looks as though he won't be able to present some
>> crucial evidence.
>
> Given that he plead guilty at one stage but was allowed to withdraw it
> and that his antics are responsible for much of the mess, I'm highly
> skeptical of the nature of this crucial evidence.
Whether you are skeptical or not is irrelevant. It should be left to a
jury to decide.
>
>> Faris pleaded guilty, again probably badly advised by his attorney.
>> Given the nature of the evidence against him (confessions obtained
>> under duress) he would probably have got off in a civilian court.
>
> So the fact that a person pleads guilty is evidence of an
> unfair trial? Yeah right.
The process under which the confession was obtained were such that it
would not be admissable in a civilian court. If he pleaded guilty because
the kangarooXXXXXXXXmilitary court would accept it then it is evidence of
an unfair trial. This case stinks. The guy is obviously not of sound
mind.
The restrictions have been used in a number of cases and only the
Moussaoui case looks like going to trial. This is itself is cause for
concern. If people are pleading guilty because they are advised by their
(government approved) attorneys or because they believe that they are
going to convicted anyway, or otherwise coerced then it is not a fair
Peter Metcalfe
says...
> On Sat, 12 Jul 2003 17:54:54 +1200, Peter Metcalfe wrote:
> > job so well that they managed to persuade a judge to drop a specific
> > charge under the Patriot Act that was supposedly tailormade for
> > his crime (interfering with mass transportation) which shows up
> > the real hazard of rushed legislation.
> He pleaded guilty so it doesn't come up. His original confession was made
> under the influence of drugs given him by police.
was given Valium by the crew and passengers, not the police, to
sedate him after the attempted bombing. Eight hours later, he
was questioned by the police and made his confession.
The defence lawyers, whom you deride as doing nothing for their
client, went so far as to find a doctor to testify that Reid
was still under the influence of valium. While it would not
have affected the understanding of his rights, the doctor
testified, the valium affected his memory so that he would
have been unable to remember his Miranda rights (his ability to
remember other details in his confession was not touched upon
for some odd reason).
The judge dismissed the relevant defence motion (to suppress
the confession so that it wuldn't be shown to a jury) saying
that by "a variety of objective criteria" Reid was "coherent"
during his confession.
> > Given that what [Walker] had committed was effectively treason
> > (they couldn't actually charge him with that due to requirements
> > for witnesses in the US Constitution), he was facing a life
> > sentence without parole.
> Why was it treason? There is no law against US citizens joinging foreign
> armies and they have non-US citizens in their own. If their generals
> order them to fight against their own countrymen they just do as they are
> ordered. That is not treason.
So only obeying orders is a valid defence against treason? This
is the relevant constitutional definition of treason:
::Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war
::against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and
::comfort.
Article III, section 3.
Joining a foreign army and then fighting against one's own countrymen
is treason.
> He effectively got the maximum penalty available.
No, he didn't. The maximum penalty was life without parole which
has been handed down quite a few times.
> Also the charge "assisting the Taleban" is rather
> obscure and there would have been good ground for challenging it.
On what grounds? That it's constitutionally vague? But the very
definition is given by the constitution so that can't be used.
Should the definition be restricted from its plain english meaning?
Perhaps. But it would still encompass a citizen that joined a
foreign army that later fought against the USA.
> > Given that [Moussaoui] plead guilty at one stage but was allowed to
> > withdraw it and that his antics are responsible for much of the mess,
> > I'm highly skeptical of the nature of this crucial evidence.
> Whether you are skeptical or not is irrelevant. It should be left to a
> jury to decide.
Whereas for Richard Reid, you believe that a jury should not have
heard his original confession. But you ignore for some odd reason,
that Moussaoui was quite willing to plead guilty, meaning that
whatever crucial evidence allegedly exists, has buggerall to do
with his guilt.
> >> Faris pleaded guilty, again probably badly advised by his attorney.
> >> Given the nature of the evidence against him (confessions obtained
> >> under duress) he would probably have got off in a civilian court.
> > So the fact that a person pleads guilty is evidence of an
> > unfair trial? Yeah right.
> The process under which the confession was obtained were such that it
> would not be admissable in a civilian court.
Really? Given that you screwed up quite badly in recounting the
circumstances of Reid's confession, I'll require a little more
than your say-so.
> If he pleaded guilty because the kangarooXXXXXXXXmilitary court would
> accept it then it is evidence of an unfair trial.
He didn't plead because a military tribunal would accept it
because the rules and regulations for military tribunals had
not be drawn up.
> The guy is obviously not of sound mind.
On what grounds?
> The restrictions have been used in a number of cases and only the
> Moussaoui case looks like going to trial.
They were used in a number of cases before 9/11.
> If people are pleading guilty because they are advised by
> their (government approved) attorneys
Throughout America, this usually happens because of a plea
bargain, in which the defendent makes an admission of guilt
in return for a lesser sentence rather than the government
introducing all its evidence and convicting the defendent
of the most serious crimes. This is what happened in the
John Walker and the Faris case. Now you may deprecate the
nature of the plea bargain, but it is not evidence of an
unfair trial.
> or because they believe that they are going to convicted
> anyway,
Which usually happens if they know they are guilty of the
crimes concerned.
> or otherwise coerced then it is not a fair process.
I daresay that you would find 99% of the trials here unfair
using similar reasoning.
--Peter Metcalfe
Barry Phease
> In article <pan.2003.07.12....@es.co.nz>, bar...@es.co.nz
> says...
>> On Sat, 12 Jul 2003 17:54:54 +1200, Peter Metcalfe wrote:
>
>> > In what way was {Reid's] trial not fair? His attorneys performed
>> > their job so well that they managed to persuade a judge to drop a
>> > specific charge under the Patriot Act that was supposedly tailormade
>> > for his crime (interfering with mass transportation) which shows up
>> > the real hazard of rushed legislation.
>
>> He pleaded guilty so it doesn't come up. His original confession was
>> made under the influence of drugs given him by police.
>
> Which only shows the worthlessness of your sources. Richard Reid was
> given Valium by the crew and passengers, not the police, to sedate him
> after the attempted bombing. Eight hours later, he was questioned by
> the police and made his confession.
>
> The defence lawyers, whom you deride as doing nothing for their client,
I didn't say they did nothing for their client. I said that they were
unable to interview their client in private. The choice of lawyer was
constrained in a way that means they may not have been best for him.
>> > Given that what [Walker] had committed was effectively treason (they
>> > couldn't actually charge him with that due to requirements for
>> > witnesses in the US Constitution), he was facing a life sentence
>> > without parole.
>
>> Why was it treason? There is no law against US citizens joinging
>> foreign armies and they have non-US citizens in their own. If their
>> generals order them to fight against their own countrymen they just do
>> as they are ordered. That is not treason.
>
> So only obeying orders is a valid defence against treason? This is the
> relevant constitutional definition of treason:
>
> ::Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war
> ::against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and
> ::comfort.
> Article III, section 3.
>
> Joining a foreign army and then fighting against one's own countrymen is
> treason.
In that case it must be a problem with people joining foreign armies. Are
there Afghans or Iraqis in the US army? Were they guilty of treason?
>> He effectively got the maximum penalty available.
>
> No, he didn't. The maximum penalty was life without parole which has
> been handed down quite a few times.
Has anybody ever been convicted of asisting the Teleban before?
>> Also the charge "assisting the Taleban" is rather obscure and there
>> would have been good ground for challenging it.
>
> On what grounds? That it's constitutionally vague? But the very
> definition is given by the constitution so that can't be used. Should
> the definition be restricted from its plain english meaning? Perhaps.
> But it would still encompass a citizen that joined a foreign army that
> later fought against the USA.
I am confused here. Does the constitution mention the Taleban?
>> > Given that [Moussaoui] plead guilty at one stage but was allowed to
>> > withdraw it and that his antics are responsible for much of the mess,
>> > I'm highly skeptical of the nature of this crucial evidence.
>
>> Whether you are skeptical or not is irrelevant. It should be left to a
>> jury to decide.
>
> Whereas for Richard Reid, you believe that a jury should not have heard
> his original confession.
I believe that it should not provide the only basis for his conviction. As
he pleaded guilty we never heard the totality of the evidence.
>But you ignore for some odd reason, that
> Moussaoui was quite willing to plead guilty, meaning that whatever
> crucial evidence allegedly exists, has buggerall to do with his guilt.
I don't know his reasons for pleading and neither do you. the point is
that of the people being prosecuted under the terrorism process he is the
only one contesting the case. Could it be because he is defending
himself?
Even the judge wonders whether a fair trial is possible.
http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/04/04/moussaoui.judge/
The trial process is skewed against the defendant, even here. The
limitations being applied in these cases make it even harder to imagine a
fair trial. I don't intend to defend people who commit (or try to commit)
crimes but they need to be tried fairly.
The ones so far vary from obviously guilty, to maybe. I just think that
the process of judging them needs to be watertight. If lawyers that they
choose (or their family choose, in the case of Walker Lindt) are excluded,
or if they are constrained from dong their job (ie not able to talk
privately to their clients, or see the prosecution documents) then the
process is weighted too much against the defendant.
Peter Metcalfe
says...
> On Sun, 13 Jul 2003 12:10:36 +1200, Peter Metcalfe wrote:
>
> > In article <pan.2003.07.12....@es.co.nz>, bar...@es.co.nz
> > says...
> > given Valium by the crew and passengers, not the police, to sedate him
> > after the attempted bombing. Eight hours later, he was questioned by
> > the police and made his confession.
Well?
> > The defence lawyers, whom you deride as doing nothing for their client,
> I didn't say they did nothing for their client.
His lawyers were government appointed whom you have dismissed as
offering bad advise to clients in the cases of Walker and Faris.
> I said that they were
> unable to interview their client in private.
And how does this affect the fairness of the trial? Any evidence
gleaned from that cannot be used in prosecutions if they were
part of the attorney-client relationship.
> The choice of lawyer was
> constrained in a way that means they may not have been best for him.
Most people before the NZ courts today are constrained in their choice
of lawyer. Yet I don't see you complaining about the unfairness of
their trials.
> >> Why was it treason? There is no law against US citizens joinging
> >> foreign armies and they have non-US citizens in their own. If their
> >> generals order them to fight against their own countrymen they just do
> >> as they are ordered. That is not treason.
> > So only obeying orders is a valid defence against treason? This is the
> > relevant constitutional definition of treason:
> > ::Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war
> > ::against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and
> > ::comfort.
> > Article III, section 3.
> > Joining a foreign army and then fighting against one's own countrymen is
> > treason.
> In that case it must be a problem with people joining foreign armies.
Why? What part of "and then fighting against one's own countrymen"
did you not understand?
> Are
> there Afghans or Iraqis in the US army? Were they guilty of treason?
AFAIK they are not required to fight because they are a security
risk.
> >> [Walker] effectively got the maximum penalty available.
> > No, he didn't. The maximum penalty was life without parole which has
> > been handed down quite a few times.
> Has anybody ever been convicted of asisting the Teleban before?
The treason statutes merely specify their enemy and leave it up
to the prosecution to show that the power that the accused has
aided fulfils the
> > On what grounds? That it's constitutionally vague? But the very
> > definition is given by the constitution so that can't be used. Should
> > the definition be restricted from its plain english meaning? Perhaps.
> > But it would still encompass a citizen that joined a foreign army that
> > later fought against the USA.
> I am confused here. Does the constitution mention the Taleban?
Read the excerpt of the constitution that I posted above. What
part of "their enemies" did you not understand?
> > Whereas for Richard Reid, you believe that a jury should not have
> > heard his original confession.
> I believe that it should not provide the only basis for his conviction.
> As he pleaded guilty we never heard the totality of the evidence.
What? Do you think that he was convicted solely on the basis of
his confession? You haven't heard about the numerous people that
caught him trying to light his shoe and restraining him in the
attempt?
> > But you ignore for some odd reason, that
> > Moussaoui was quite willing to plead guilty, meaning that whatever
> > crucial evidence allegedly exists, has buggerall to do with his guilt.
> I don't know his reasons for pleading and neither do you.
Not even when he clearly stated his reasons for doing so?
> the point is
> that of the people being prosecuted under the terrorism process he
> is the only one contesting the case.
Reid, Walker and Faris all vigourously contested their cases until
they switched their pleas.
> Could it be because he is defending himself?
No.
> > Even the judge wonders whether a fair trial is possible.
> > http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/04/04/moussaoui.judge/
Where does she say this? All that she says is that she
believes that government can't succesfully prosecute if
it's going to keep most of its evidence secret. Which
should be music to your ears if you want Massaoiu to get
off.
> >> The process under which [Faris's] confession was obtained were such
> >> that it would not be admissable in a civilian court.
> > Really? Given that you screwed up quite badly in recounting the
> > circumstances of Reid's confession, I'll require a little more than
> > your say-so.
Well?
> >> If he pleaded guilty because the kangarooXXXXXXXXmilitary court
> >> would accept it then it is evidence of an unfair trial.
> > He didn't plead because a military tribunal would accept it because
> > the rules and regulations for military tribunals had not be drawn up.
Well?
> >> The guy is obviously not of sound mind.
> > On what grounds?
Well?
> >> The restrictions have been used in a number of cases and only the
> >> Moussaoui case looks like going to trial.
> > They were used in a number of cases before 9/11.
Well?
> >> If people are pleading guilty because they are advised by their
> >> (government approved) attorneys
> > Throughout America, this usually happens because of a plea bargain, in
> > which the defendent makes an admission of guilt in return for a lesser
> > sentence rather than the government introducing all its evidence and
> > convicting the defendent of the most serious crimes. This is what
> > happened in the John Walker and the Faris case. Now you may deprecate
> > the nature of the plea bargain, but it is not evidence of an unfair
> > trial.
Well?
> >> or because they believe that they are going to convicted anyway,
> > Which usually happens if they know they are guilty of the crimes
> > concerned.
Well?
> >> or otherwise coerced then it is not a fair process.
> > I daresay that you would find 99% of the trials here unfair using
> > similar reasoning.
> The trial process is skewed against the defendant, even here. The
> limitations being applied in these cases make it even harder to
> imagine a fair trial.
In what way? You've gotten your facts wrong and shown ignorance of
relevant legal matters.
> I don't intend to defend people who commit
> (or try to commit) crimes but they need to be tried fairly.
And since you haven't shown any criteria for what you mean by
fairness (and most of the criteria that people here will come
up with are products of the accusatorial court system and
unknown in the continental inquistorial courts), your complaints
of unfairness are just vapid words at best.
> The ones so far vary from obviously guilty, to maybe.
Reid: obviously guilty (although you think his confession was the
only evidence against him).
Walker: obviously guilty (although you try and excuse his conduct
on the grounds that he was only abeying orders).
Faris: pleaded guilty in a plea bargain (although you claim with
no evidence that he was of unsound mind).
Moussaoui: has admitted the case against him.
> I just think that the process of judging them needs to be
> watertight.
You haven't shown anything otherwise. The burden of proof
still applies and all that.
> If lawyers that they choose (or their family choose, in
> the case of Walker Lindt) are excluded,
On what grounds? All that's required is that lawyers face
security vetting which applied in the Walker case. No more
stringent than requiring lawyers to have a law degree.
> or if they are constrained from dong their job (ie not
> able to talk privately to their clients, or see the
> prosecution documents)
They are able to see prosecution documents.
> then the
> process is weighted too much against the defendant.
A conclusion which you have not demonstrated.
--Peter Metcalfe
Brian Dooley
<metc...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>In article <fqqugvkk4oa979rvv...@4ax.com>,
>dpears...@bigfoot.com.au says...
>> On Sat, 12 Jul 2003 11:59:20 +1200, Peter Metcalfe
>> <metc...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>
>> >And Belgium has been seriously toning down its law after people
>> >started abusing it.
>
>> Toning down does not equal getting rid of.
>
>The nature of the toning down is effectively just that.
>
>> And just imagine the uproar if the US implemented a similar law.
>
>Like the Alien Torts Act of 1789?
The Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798 caused an uproar - not like
the response to the Patriot Act of 2001.
Jefferson where are you now that the USA needs you.
--
Brian Dooley
Wellington New Zealand
Barry Phease
> In article <pan.2003.07.13....@es.co.nz>, bar...@es.co.nz
> says...
>> > Even the judge wonders whether a fair trial is possible.
>
>> > http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/04/04/moussaoui.judge/
>
> Where does she say this? All that she says is that she believes that
> government can't succesfully prosecute if it's going to keep most of its
> evidence secret. Which should be music to your ears if you want
> Massaoiu to get off.
>
>
When did I say that I wanted him to get off. I said that I wanted to see
him get a fair trial.
What she said amounts to the same thing as saying that he can't get a fair
trial.
Brinkema then said she "agrees with the defendant's skepticism of the
government's ability to prosecute this case in open court in light of the
shroud of secrecy under which it seeks to proceed."
The government forcefully opposes Moussaoui's applications and, citing
national security, has strictly denied terrorism suspects or attorneys
any access to such top al Qaeda captives; nor does the government want
them to testify in open court.
Peter Metcalfe
says...
> On Sun, 13 Jul 2003 17:39:32 +1200, Peter Metcalfe wrote:
> > In article <pan.2003.07.13....@es.co.nz>, bar...@es.co.nz
> > says...
> >> > Even the judge wonders whether a fair trial is possible.
> >> > http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/04/04/moussaoui.judge/
> > Where does she say this? All that she says is that she believes that
> > government can't succesfully prosecute if it's going to keep most of its
> > evidence secret. Which should be music to your ears if you want
> > Massaoiu to get off.
> When did I say that I wanted him to get off. I said that I wanted to see
> him get a fair trial.
Which you have previously indicated does not happen if a person
pleads guilty. So the only possible test of a fair trial in your
eyes is that the accused gets acquitted.
> What she said amounts to the same thing as saying that he can't get
> a fair trial.
No, it's not.
> Brinkema then said she "agrees with the defendant's skepticism of the
> government's ability to prosecute this case in open court in light of
> the shroud of secrecy under which it seeks to proceed."
Which is not the same thing as saying he can't get a fair trial. All
that it does is say that the government can't mount a successful
prosecution which is something entirely different.
> The government forcefully opposes Moussaoui's applications and,
Considering the nature of those applications, I'm not surprised.
In one motion, he "suggested the need to bang the judge's head
against the wall, derided Attorney General John Ashcroft's
Christianity, described one defence lawyer as fat and others
as the racist, the Kamikaze and the Jew".
These are the list of his motions:
MOTION to Stop Leonie Brinkema to Undermine My Chance to Live by Her
Smearing Campaign
MOTION to Have the Right to Get all Motion Filed in My Case and to Stop
Standby Lawyer Interfereing in My Pro Se Defense
MOTION to Force Leonie Brinkema to Accept Bro Freeman Motion
MOTION to Stop the FBI to Temper With Evidence and to Have Hussein AL
ATTAS and Ali Mukhram Called as Witness Immediate Hearing
MOTION to Stipulate My Right and Duty to Live on this Earth a Long and
Happy Life (with four wives) and to Stop this Judge Misrepresenting My
Fight For Life
MOTION to Have a Fair Trial Free of Islamphobia and Discrimination
MOTION to Be Given Printout of the Visa Application of Ramzi and the
Western Union Money Transfer of Ahad Sabet
MOTION Already 3 Weeks that I Ask You Leonie Brinkema to Order the FBI to
Release My Letter to Europe
MOTION Leonie Brinkema Embargo on Bro Freeman Legal Assistance Services
to Me, Must Stop Now
MOTION for Justice
MOTION to Stop Zacarias Moussaoui State Murder and Have the Right to
Contact the French Embassy and National Assembly
MOTION to Stop the Liars and Freedom of Information and Security for
Zacarias Moussaoui
MOTION to Have Hearing Scheduled Today Held As Soon As Possible Next Week
MOTION to Compel the FBI to Confess Publicly the They Lie Again to the
American when they Claim that Ramzi Binalshibh was the Same Person as
Ahad Sabet
MOTION to Compel the FBI to Release My Letter to the European Court of
Justice and Parliament, the German High Court and Parliament, The British
High Court and Parliament, the Deutch High Court and Parliament
MOTION to See Bro Freeman Before My Grand Jury Testimony on 16 July
MOTION for Pre Contempt of Leonie Brinkema Order to Declare Zacarias
Moussaoui Crazy
MOTION to Stop DJ Brinkema and Her Standby Lawyer to Undermine My
Credibility, Dignity and my Ability to Defend Myself (to Save My Life)
MOTION to Have the Grand Jury Testimony of Zacarias Moussaoui on July 16,
2002 Open to the People of America and the World
MOTION to Stop the Cynical Comedy, Parody, of Justice Directed by DJ
Brinkema
MOTION Against Government Redaction of My Totale Opposition to Suicide
and the Right to Respond Before Order
MOTION to Compel the United States Government to Apologize to the Muslim
Ummah for the Insult to the Coran Contain in the Letter to Zacarias
Moussaoui
MOTION to Have the Right to a Public Trial
MOTION to Have Hearing on the 11 July 2002 to Expose the Truth on the FBI
Under Cover Surveillance Operation Against Me and the 19 Hijackers
MOTION to Improve the Security for the Life of Zacarias Moussaoui
MOTION to Put Some Sanity in the Superlying Indictment
MOTION Against the Use of Violence and the Threat of Violence By Captain
Mitchell of Alexandria Jail
MOTION Anti FBI Cover Up Motion to Have Free Access to My Testimony and
Freeman Bro.
MOTION to Respect Her Own Word
MOTION to See What the Scam is About
MOTION to be Handed All Printout of [sic] Death Appointed Lawyer McMahon
and Federal Public Defender of Defense Production and Material Before
June 13, 2002
REPLY to Government Response Docket 243
MOTION for Immediate Release of Moussaoui Zacarias Due to Overwhelming
Proof of an FBI Cover Up; Hearing Must Be Held to Hear Testimony of
Hussein AL ATTAS Along Side Coleen Rowley
REDACTED MOTION for Freedom of Justice and Freeman (Orginal Document
Filed Under Seal)
MOTION to Have Independant Electronic Forensic Surveillance Expert to
Examine and Test a Square Fan (70cm x 70cm) "Mysteriously" Left on My Car
MOTION to See Bro. Freeman and Be Able to Defend My Life
MOTION for Immediate Release and/or FBI Certification that the FBI were
not Conducting and Undercover Surveillance Operation Against Zaccarias
Moussaoui and the 19 Hijacker and Facilitated their Movement and
Prevented their Arrest
REPLY to the Response of Government to Electronic Expert Surveillance
Forensic Independant Examination of My Belonging
MOTION to Get FBI Certification and or Immediate Release
MOTION to Compel the National Computer Crime Must Certify that No
Instruction, Order, Recommendation, Information was Placed by any
Government Agencies on Zacarias Moussaoui and/or any of the 19 Highjacker
on his National Computer Crime System
MOTION to Compel the INS to Certify that I Did Not Receive Instruction,
Recommendation, Plea, Representation, Demand from any other Government
Agencies to Issue the Order of Deportation
MOTION to Speak to the Press
MOTION Bro. Freeman Must be Allow to See Me to Provide Out of Court Legal
Assistance and Investigate the Case in Europe for Me
MOTION to Stop DJ Leonie Brinkema to Remove Me from My Defense Pro Se
MOTION to Force the So Call Counsel and Standby Government Lawyer to Hand
over Defense Production and Material Produce Before My Installation as
Pro Se on June 13
MOTION to Inspect My Property and Originial Evidence and to Have Testing
for Electronic Device (for Surveillance) on Belonging Seized by FBI at My
Arrest and After September 11
MOTION to have "I heard you were going on Jihad" Conversation Recorded on
the 18 of August 2001 Sherburne County Jail and the FBI Declassified as
Secret and Given to Me
MOTION Nobody can Prepare Sept 11 in 14 Working Days
MOTION to Remove Federal Public Defender from any Activity in this Case
Because of their Conspiracy to Kill Me and their Ineffective Assistance.
As well as any Government Court Appointed Lawyer
MOTION to Compel the Government to Withdraw the Charge Against Me Because
the FBI were Conducting an Undercover Surveillance Operation
MOTION to Appear in Front of the Grand Jury Convene on September 11
Attack to Testify
MOTION to Give Me A Chance to Defend Myself By Seeing Bro Freeman to
Receive Out of Court Legal Assistance on Federal Law
MOTION to Appear in Front of Congress Hearing on FBI Knowledge and
Responsibility on the Sept 11 Attack
MOTION to Stop Leonie Brinkema DJ playing Game with My Life
> citing national security,
A valid reason to suppress certain evidence. A valuable
source of information was lost when the US was forced to
declare they were tapping Osama's satellite phone
communications - Osama found out and stopped using them.
> has strictly denied terrorism suspects or attorneys
> any access to such top al Qaeda captives;
Because they don't want suspects conferring and comparing
notes, a legitimate security concern. Now if you can find
a simple rule or procedure to balance the security concerns
with access to exculpulatory witnesses, the US justice
system will beat a path to your door. But right now, they
are grappling with the thorny problem and examining the
positions staked out by both sides is how they resolve it.
> nor does the government want them to testify in open court.
Similar practices are used in New Zealand with sensitive
cases (such as secret witnesses, undercover cops etc).
You still haven't described the essentials of what you
think a fair trial should be.
--Peter Metcalfe
Barry Phease
>
> You still haven't described the essentials of what you
> think a fair trial should be.
Consider what the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers says
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/13/politics/13TRIB.html?ex=1059067396&ei=1&en=45414d48f160c1c8
Mr. Goldman, a New York lawyer, wrote in the association's magazine this
month that his group had considered soliciting people for a task force of
experienced defense lawyers who would volunteer their services to tribunal
defendants. But his group was troubled by restrictions on issues like
information gathering and the privacy of lawyer-client conversations.
"In view of the extraordinary restrictions on counsel, however, with
considerable regret, we cannot advise any of our members to act as
civilian counsel at Guantanamo," he wrote. "The rules regulating counsel's
behavior are just too restrictive to give us any confidence that counsel
will be able to act zealously and professionally."
Peter Metcalfe
Strange that his lot have been operating under similar conditions
in criminal trials for a number of terrorists before 9/11.
--Peter Metcalfe