Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Ion · 08-11-2003, 09:07 PM

This comes from another forum:

Quote:

Originally posted by subgenius
The last I heard the prosecution "accidentally" delivered secret documents to his jail cell. (I'll comment on the significance of that later)

"The next day, (Judge) Brinkema sided with defense arguments that Moussaoui's right to a fair trial depended on letting a jury hear potentially exculpatory testimony from Binalshibh.

Prosecutors reject the description of Binalshibh as a defense-friendly witness and told the U.S Court of Appeals in Richmond, Virginia, in June that "this witness buries the defendant."

Still, the government, citing the national security risks and an aversion to disrupting his military interrogation, appealed Brinkema's order for a videotaped deposition of Binalshibh via satellite.

The appeals court decided it would rule on the appeal only after Brinkema imposes penalties on the government for failing to produce Binalshibh.

Those penalties, which are pending, could range up to her dismissing the case.
http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/08/08/mo...ane/index.html

So.... the prosecution wants to stop the depositon of a witness they say "buries" the defendant. (Sounds like suppressing the 9/11 report implicating the Saudis, even though they want it released.)
And Moussaoui has repeatedly tried to "tell all" in open court, and no one wants to hear it.
Don't matter if the judge dismisses the case because of the prosecution's violation of orders, they are going to remove venue to the secret military tribunal.
What could possibly come out that they're afraid of at this point? We are getting killed in Iraq, going backwards in Afghanistan. Osama and Saddam are at large.
Let's keep all the evidence that's embarrassing to the CIA and administration secret?
This case will soon be sent to secret proceedings. They will say its for "national security." There are those who will believe that without any reason other than they say it.
And what about the "accidental" delivery of secret documents to his jail cell? Yeah, what about that? Incompetence? Or competence?

It didn't receive replies there.

I would be interested to see if people here have opinions on this matter.

I am puzzled that Bush doesn't address the Saudi hijackers of September 11 with Saudi Arabia, at least publicly so far.

But sure Bush had the time to fabricate the oil war in Iraq, instead, when he falsely implied that Iraq is linked to September 11.

Ion · 08-11-2003, 09:54 PM

What intrigues me now, to start with, are:

1) why does the government insist so far to try Moussaoui in public, and not under a secret military tribunal?

2) when the government appeals judge Brinkema's decision for a videotaped deposition of Binalshibh that is transmitted via satellite, is it because the government did beat up Binalshibh so badly that it cannot show Binalshibh in a real-life transmission via satellite?

3) Bush didn't address publicly the Saudi Arabia role in the September 11 attack, but falsely did address the Iraq role in the September 11 attack, then Bush warred Iraq and now loots Iraq's oil.

Darwin26 · 08-11-2003, 10:07 PM

CAN'oWORMScAn'OwOrMsCAn'oWOrmS i don't know anyother way to 'slpain it Lucy...
This is the justice dept at it's finest...
i think that it is so embedded to 9.11 that people, even us radicals sense such dispair...disdain to touch the subject. i for one will not watch any footage of the planes __________
Massoui seems to need a platform to sing on ...and the Feds don't want that... Who knows what they want?

what do you think they want out of this case?

Ion · 08-11-2003, 10:18 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Darwin26

...
__________
Massoui seems to need a platform to sing on ...and the Feds don't want that... Who knows what they want?

what do you think they want out of this case?
...

I don't know either.

I know the September 11 event of course, but I am discovering the September 11 case.

According to newspapers, the politicians use September 11 a lot in their speeches, though.

However, in public at least -so that I can see it-, Bush hasn't done so far anything true about September 11.

Happy Wonderer · 08-11-2003, 10:57 PM

I think the government wants an excuse to move Moussaui to a secret military tribunal, which wasn't available when he was first detained (before 9-11.) As it stands now, he has a decent lawyer (actually I think she is pretty damn good) who is doing a good job of bringing the plight of the other prisoners to light.

The problem is that the camp X-Ray bit is so at variance with what this country is about that the government doesn't want anybody to think about it; basically they want to keep all the civilian lawyers out since they can't be constrained by military law. The dilemmas right now are many. If Moussaui gets a civilian trial, why not the others? If he can speak to real people, why can't the camp X-Ray guys? The government makes one of the more absurd and chilling arguments I have heard when they say that the X-Ray guys can't see lawyers because, essentially, it would screw up the psychological torture that the military guys are using.

It is a real can-o-worms for the government and it would be much easier if Mossaui just disappeared like the others. We have basically got a massive tar baby on our hands and can't get rid of it now.

hw

Ion · 08-11-2003, 11:13 PM

OK Happy, so your post answers this:

Quote:

Originally posted by Ion

...
1) why does the government insist so far to try Moussaoui in public, and not under a secret military tribunal?
...

It is puzzling that Bush never addressed publicly Saudi Arabia, given that most of the September 11 terrorists were Saudis.

From the forum where I lifted the opening post here, this thread:

http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showt...i&pagenumber=2

titled 'Why is Bush hiding the Saudi Connection to Terrorism?', gives a background of ties between Bush and Saudi Arabia.

Darwin26 · 08-12-2003, 12:21 AM

...checked out the JREF forum page/link ...interesting to be sure...
Today on Pacifica Radio, Amy Goodman played a 2 year old interview she did with this guy named ' Hatfield...who wrote a book about Dubya...this was the first time it was air'd. Hatfield allegedly committed suicide shortly after the interview...
the crux of the interview... the story and sources of Bush's connections to the bin Laden's, his brokered cocaine conviction... etc.

STuff is coming up... and the Saudi links are looking ugly. From Massoui to some redacted passages ...
and all the incredible short comings of the operations in Iraq...
After a while excuses by the Fascists won't hold water.

08-11-2003, 10:07 PM	#3
Darwin26 Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Encino, CA Posts: 806	Ion CAN'oWORMScAn'OwOrMsCAn'oWOrmS i don't know anyother way to 'slpain it Lucy... This is the justice dept at it's finest... i think that it is so embedded to 9.11 that people, even us radicals sense such dispair...disdain to touch the subject. i for one will not watch any footage of the planes __________ Massoui seems to need a platform to sing on ...and the Feds don't want that... Who knows what they want? what do you think they want out of this case?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

08-11-2003, 09:54 PM	#2
Ion Banned Join Date: Dec 2000 Location: San Diego, California Posts: 2,817	What intrigues me now, to start with, are: 1) why does the government insist so far to try Moussaoui in public, and not under a secret military tribunal? 2) when the government appeals judge Brinkema's decision for a videotaped deposition of Binalshibh that is transmitted via satellite, is it because the government did beat up Binalshibh so badly that it cannot show Binalshibh in a real-life transmission via satellite? 3) Bush didn't address publicly the Saudi Arabia role in the September 11 attack, but falsely did address the Iraq role in the September 11 attack, then Bush warred Iraq and now loots Iraq's oil.

08-11-2003, 10:57 PM	#5
Happy Wonderer Veteran Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Washington, the least religious state Posts: 5,334	I think the government wants an excuse to move Moussaui to a secret military tribunal, which wasn't available when he was first detained (before 9-11.) As it stands now, he has a decent lawyer (actually I think she is pretty damn good) who is doing a good job of bringing the plight of the other prisoners to light. The problem is that the camp X-Ray bit is so at variance with what this country is about that the government doesn't want anybody to think about it; basically they want to keep all the civilian lawyers out since they can't be constrained by military law. The dilemmas right now are many. If Moussaui gets a civilian trial, why not the others? If he can speak to real people, why can't the camp X-Ray guys? The government makes one of the more absurd and chilling arguments I have heard when they say that the X-Ray guys can't see lawyers because, essentially, it would screw up the psychological torture that the military guys are using. It is a real can-o-worms for the government and it would be much easier if Mossaui just disappeared like the others. We have basically got a massive tar baby on our hands and can't get rid of it now. hw

08-12-2003, 12:21 AM	#7
Darwin26 Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Encino, CA Posts: 806	...checked out the JREF forum page/link ...interesting to be sure... Today on Pacifica Radio, Amy Goodman played a 2 year old interview she did with this guy named ' Hatfield...who wrote a book about Dubya...this was the first time it was air'd. Hatfield allegedly committed suicide shortly after the interview... the crux of the interview... the story and sources of Bush's connections to the bin Laden's, his brokered cocaine conviction... etc. STuff is coming up... and the Saudi links are looking ugly. From Massoui to some redacted passages ... and all the incredible short comings of the operations in Iraq... After a while excuses by the Fascists won't hold water.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.