| And life is simple&easy going again. Just some
quotes to place (so I do not have to write it myself). Again the American
government might be going on with making herself the fool of the century
and if you don't understand me please leave and never return. Let
me start quoting, they were found on the Washington Post (journalist info: By Jerry Markon
Washington Post Staff Writer, Wednesday April 2, in the year 2003); U.S. Tries to Block Access to Witness for Terror Trial
Secret Briefs in Moussaoui Case Say Civilian Courts Must Defer to Military
The government is invoking unprecedented national security powers in asking an appellate court to deny alleged Sept. 11 conspirator Zacarias Moussaoui access to a key al Qaeda detainee, arguing that civilian courts should not interfere with military decisions, according to sources with knowledge of secret court documents. Reinko:
Very interesting, this can only mean that the Binalshibh figure has some
'important' kind of info to tell (or there is some 'important' kind of info
being kept from the public eye, but again why?) In classified briefs filed with the Richmond- based U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit, federal prosecutors are citing a World War II-era Supreme Court decision as part of their effort to overturn a judge's ruling that Moussaoui's lawyers can interview Ramzi Binalshibh, the self-described planner of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, the sources said. But that decision concerned war prisoners tried by the military outside the United States. The government is for the first time trying to apply it to someone charged in a civilian court. Reinko:
First time since World War II, to be honest this scale is not very
significant if you ask me. It looks as if it is fine in line with my ideas
about my so called 'powers' (as we have the power to humiliate American
government, the power to ride the DOW down&the power to...). If the government's argument is accepted by the 4th Circuit and ultimately the Supreme Court, it would hold far-reaching implications for the war on terrorism and the power of the courts, legal experts said. It would create a legal standard for accused terrorists or enemy combatants that differs from how courts have treated criminal defendants for generations. Some experts say that's justified during the war with Iraq and a global crackdown on the al Qaeda network.
"We're still in the middle of a war, needing intelligence information about terrorists," said Victoria Toensing, a Washington lawyer who created the terrorism unit in Ronald Reagan's Justice Department. "In the middle of a war, when you have to not only punish but prevent another attack, you can't have the same rules. Creating new law is what the law has been about for over 200 years." Reinko:
Nonsense, the questions the lawyers of M have could be spelled out on the
forehand so that 'proper authorities' could classify them into some 'public
part' and some 'secret part'. As far as I know the so called 'War on Terror'
was to defend our way of living, what harm could the questioning of B do to
this way of living? The sources also said that the Defense Department and the CIA, which originally took custody of Binalshibh, have told the Justice Department that they would not allow Moussaoui's lawyers any access to the al
Queda detainee. That means that the civilian prosecution of Moussaoui most likely is done if the government does not win the appeal.
Defense attorneys, in their reply briefs filed yesterday under court seal, were using a series of cases to show that Moussaoui's ability to interview witnesses who can aid his defense is a constitutional right.
Moussaoui's attorneys, prosecutors handling the appeal and Justice Department officials declined to comment. Reinko:
I have no comments too, but I simply can not think of any detail why not
some questions could be asked to mr B. Questions delivered on the forehand
is also too much? Ok, have it your way for this day... But since I do know
your strategy on this particular subject, aren't you afraid that I make some
kind of heavy misuse of this knowledge? Only in this big big shade you offer
me it is possible the Kweb grows&I want academic figures into the Kweb
and I want the best of soldiers from as much countries as possible in the
Kweb. Thank you for the big shade my dear smarties, the Kweb is now 20
months of age and is doing fine I hope....
We proceed quoting: The weighty legal issues stem from a sealed Jan. 30 decision by U.S. District Judge Leonie M. Brinkema that granted Moussaoui's attorneys access to Binalshibh. Specifically, sources said Brinkema allowed the defense to depose Binalshibh as a possible witness at Moussaoui's trial. Sources have said that Binalshibh has told interrogators that he was concerned that Moussaoui was drawing attention to himself and that Moussaoui would have been used in the Sept. 11 plot only as a last resort.
Moussaoui, 34, a French citizen, is the only person charged in the United States in connection with the Sept. 11 attacks. He was indicted in December 2001 on charges of conspiring with other al
Queda members to hijack the planes that crashed into the World Trade Center and Pentagon. He could face the death penalty if convicted.
Moussaoui's indictment was announced with great fanfare by Attorney General John D. Ashcroft as an example of how the United States could prosecute terrorists in the criminal justice system. But the case has been marked by delays and complications.
The indictment says Binalshibh wired Moussaoui at least $14,000 as part of the conspiracy. Binalshibh was captured last fall in Pakistan and is being questioned at an undisclosed location.
Despite Brinkema's order, the military and intelligence communities have made it clear that Binalshibh will not be turned over, sources said. The government, bolstered by recent successes in the campaign against al
Queda, says that would disrupt a key interrogation and lead to the disclosure of information harmful to national security. Reinko:
Military people have to decide for themselves, and indeed it is true I am
with you until now in the present war into the Iraqi landscape. But I want
to know the truth around 11 Sept 2001 and if I were you I would think around
the years after this; one way or the other this truth will be found. And let
me be clear on this, if I need a nuke to find it out I will use a nuke. Do
not underestimate me and do not overestimate me, but if you say 'It is just
one guy' then I have to say 'It is just one nuke'. And
by the way, now just after Afghanistan, don't you say just like Churchill
after WW II 'We have just slaughtered the wrong swine?' Did you say that or
not?
Now we go on with quotes The government on March 14 filed sealed briefs to the 4th Circuit, and the Richmond court took the extraordinary step last week of closing the May 6 oral arguments to the public.
Attorneys can view the briefs only in locked facilities known as SCIF (Secure Classified Information Facility) rooms. The defense room is in the basement of the federal courthouse in Alexandria; the government room is within the U.S. attorney's office, located in the same building.
According to people familiar with them, the government briefs use mostly national security arguments, saying that those issues outweigh the importance Binalshibh might have to Moussaoui's defense.
Reinko: Bla bla bla, what is the specific 'outweigh issue'? In an old case
like the M trial (all know what happened, some box cutters were used and
some planes and after that this mayor was definitely two inches shorter.
Also Annie her legs were vaporized, but does Binalshibh know this? Or does
he very very may be know that I was some kind of 'enemy to the Islam' before
11 Sept? Don't know, ask hear or see. No, just write and we
proceed quotes (the last): Richard Samp, chief counsel for the Washington Legal Foundation -- a conservative public-interest law firm that intervened on the government's side in the Guantanamo case -- said it is reasonable for the government to now apply that case to Moussaoui "for the general proposition that we shouldn't be second-guessing military decisions, particularly at a time of war." Reinko:
Please Richard, why don't you show the path of logic that makes the sense to
this Iraqi war preventing potato knifes & box cutter facts surface? Is
it true that the Iraqi's attack with potato knifes and box cutters? You say
'Particularly at a time of war', I say 'Please Richard shot up'. ___________________________________________________ Conclusions:
I cannot bake any French fries from this refusal of the hearing of B. And I
cannot understand why this particular court case is surrounded by so many
secrecy, if my little 'trigger hypothesis' makes no sense this all cannot be
understood.
Dear reader, what do you think? Do you think I understand the reasons for
the secrecy or not? What do you think? . Back
to Part 20 |
