Feds Plan Prosecution of KSM
This should poke some holes in the arguments raised by 9-11 Deniers:
The effort to sift the classified files of the Pentagon, F.B.I., C.I.A. and other intelligence agencies amounts to the first concrete steps that the government has taken to press ahead with war crimes trials of high-level terror suspects under a plan announced by President Bush in a speech last September.
At the time, Mr. Bush said that Mr. Mohammed and 13 other high-level terror suspects had been transferred from secret prisons around the world to the military detention center at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, where they would be held pending trial.
The preparation of cases against the high-value operatives appears to rebut many who doubted that Qaeda suspects like Mr. Mohammed would ever be brought to trial. Critics in Congress and human rights groups had asserted that such trials would not be feasible because they would expose harsh interrogation techniques used by the Central Intelligence Agency.
The officials who discussed the preparations have been briefed on the effort in detail and represented several agencies. They declined to speak on the record about deliberations in advance of criminal prosecutions involving national security.
The prosecution team for the Qaeda defendants will be a mix of military and civilian prosecutors. Some officials said no decision had been made about who would lead each prosecution, but others said the trial of Mr. Mohammed would probably be undertaken principally by Justice Department lawyers, who would run the prosecution in a military courtroom in Guantánamo.
Mr. Mohammed, whose alleged role in the Sept. 11 attacks would make him the centerpiece of the government’s effort to bring terrorists to justice in a court of law, could be held responsible for about 3,000 deaths in the attacks, officials have said.
posted by Pat @ 7:18 AM
14 comments
14 Comments:
Let's give him the death penalty this time, folks.
Lets hope the Prosecutors do better this time around than what happened in Germany. Hopefully this trial will include all evidence, except for the testing of explosive residue which of course was never done. ;)
U.S.: No testimony at 9/11 retrial
HAMBURG, Germany -- The United States has said it will not let key al Qaeda suspects in its custody testify at the retrial of the only September 11 suspect ever to be convicted.
WHY?
The announcement came as the retrial of Mounir el Motassadeq opened in a Hamburg courtroom on Tuesday.
Because....
In a letter to the German Embassy in Washington, U.S. officials said "interactive access" to such prisoners could hamper their interrogation and lead to critical secret information being divulged, The Associated Press reported.
(Its not like the world doesn't know anyway.)
However, the U.S. State Department letter, which was read out in court, said the United States would provide unclassified summaries, apparently of interrogations, according to AP.
Trial Judge Ernst-Rainer Schudt described the offer of summaries as "a bit of progress."
In el Motassadeq's first trial, U.S. authorities refused to allow even transcripts of two key suspects' interrogations to be admitted as evidence.
In February 2003, el Motassadeq became the first person anywhere to be convicted in connection with the 2001 attacks. He was sentenced to 15 years in jail.
But earlier this year, an appeals court ruled the verdict was unfair because the U.S.-held witnesses did not testify, and it ordered a new trial.
El Motassadeq, who denies the charges, was released from prison in April.
In May, German authorities asked the United States to provide access to six key witnesses, including Ramzi Binalshibh, a Yemeni who is believed to have been the Hamburg al Qaeda cell's key contact with Osama bin Laden's organization.
However, in its letter, the United States said that even information on whether a given individual was in custody was classified as secret.
Other key witnesses sought by German authorities include suspected September 11 plotter Zacarias Moussaoui and Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, who is thought to be the mastermind of the attacks.
Opening the retrial Tuesday, Judge Schudt said the Hamburg state court wouldn't be swayed by political pressure.
"For me, this is not about fulfilling the expectations of governments or the public," he said. "The black hole in the chain of evidence will close. We will certainly not sink into it."
El Motassadeq smiled but said nothing as he entered the court. He briefly answered questions about his identity but turned down the judge's offer to respond to the indictment, AP reported.
El Motassadeq's lawyer said he would maintain his client's innocence, then ask the court to drop the proceedings because past experience showed el Motassadeq would not get a fair trial.
Lawyer Josef Graessle-Muenscher told AP he would argue that torture "underlies the interrogation system of the United States," making any evidence from Binalshibh or Mohammed inadmissible even if it is provided.
He cited reports from prisoners released from U.S. military detention at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and the policy of holding Taliban and al Qaeda suspects without giving them the usual rights of prisoners of war set out in the Geneva Conventions, AP said.
El Motassadeq is accused of helping pay tuition and other bills for members of the Hamburg al Qaeda cell, which included suicide hijackers Mohamed Atta, Marwan al-Shehhi and Ziad Jarrah, to allow them to live as students as they plotted the attacks.
He admitted training in bin Laden's camps in Afghanistan, and witnesses at his trial testified that he was as radical as the rest of the group, often talking of jihad -- holy war -- and his hatred of Israel and the United States.
He signed Atta's will and had power of attorney over al-Shehhi's bank account.
El Motassadeq has said he was nothing more than close friends with the others and did only things that a good Muslim would do for any "brother."
CNN's Chris Burns contributed to this report
Ahh...let them all go. Then maybe the truthers will shut up. That is what they want. let the Jihadists go, and hang the USG...right. What a crock.
Good luck with that.
TAM
Hopefully this trial will include all evidence
It doesn't take a genius to see piles of corpses, gas chambers, cremetoria, rail lines and a bunch of officers to put two and two together.
Nuremburg was a "kangaroo" court because all the evidence was out there for the world to see from BEFORE day one. Those tried were guilty as sin and everyone knew before they had their first day in court.
What about Ali Mohamed? Pleaded guilty for assisting and co-executing the 93 WTC bombing, 98 US embassy attacks, wrote manuals for Al-Qaeda and the 9/11 hijackers. Where is he now? Under the witness protection program!
And will be released soon.
Why all the special treatment?
Google the keywords "Ali Mohamed CIA" or for better info, read Peter Lance's new book "Triple Cross".
Actually, Ali Abdul Saoud Mohamed is in federal custody (which isn't witness protection).
There's only a single source reporting that he was released, and a short perusal should make one note that it isn't a very reliable source at that.
It's cute how the CTs don't really give you the information but rely on half-truths and the faith that you'll be too lazy to fact-check them.
Actually, Ali Abdul Saoud Mohamed is in federal custody (which isn't witness protection).
Read Peter Lance's new book "Triple Cross", the man accessed thousands of files.
AMY GOODMAN: Where is Ali Mohamed today?
PETER LANCE: Ali Mohamed is in some kind of custodial witness protection. As I said, he cut a deal. He escaped the death penalty. He is -- I believe he’s in the New York area somewhere, because Cloonan said his wife Linda Sanchez remains loyal to him, visits him regularly, and Cloonan lives in the New York area, and he says, “I see Linda when she comes in to visit Ali.” But they may have moved him by now.
AMY GOODMAN: Why would the US be protecting him?
PETER LANCE: Because he is a one-man 9/11 commission.....
Read More about the book Here. The 9/11 Whitewash Commission only mentions Ali Mohamed in 1 page
And it's funny how you labeled what I posted about Ali Mohamed as a cute, half-truth claim and don't bother into looking deeper into what I said (researching).
Incase you're wondering who Peter Lance is, he's a 5 time Emmy awards winning investigative reporter.
Well, if you're quoting Peter Lance, surely you agree with his belief that Al Qaeda was responsible for 9/11, and that the US government was only responsible through incompetence? If so, welcome about. I'm not sure I believe Lances conclusions about Ali, but that's something that will be confirmed without too much difficulty. If he's converted you away from the rest of the 9/11 conspiracies, then my respect for him already went up a notch.
On the other hand, if, as I suspect, you disagree with his conclusions about 9/11, but agree with his conclusions about Ali, please explain just why you think he's a credible source on the one subject but not the other.
Well, if you're quoting Peter Lance, surely you agree with his belief that Al Qaeda was responsible for 9/11
If he's converted you away from the rest of the 9/11 conspiracies, then my respect for him already went up a notch.
I'm sorry but, why are you already talking to me like some type of nutty CT'ist when you don't even fucking know what my views on 9/11 are?
All of my posts (here at SLC) clearly show that I'm LIHOP (which I find to be the best explanation for how and why the 9/11 attacks happened, when looking at the "official" story in a critical way). You'll never see me theorising about bombs being set off in the Twin Towers (like our good friend BG).
Like Peter Lance, yes, I do believe that those 19 terrorists did hijack those planes and crash them into their targets. But the 'Al-Qaeda did it' part is only 50% of my conclusion on 9/11. The other 50% is that they did it with the help of a sovereign nation. There is no way in hell that those terrorists could of been under all that heavy surveillance, have their most important meeting recorded, (the infamous Malaysia Meeting Al-Qaeda Summit), get indentified by Able Danger a year and half before 9/11, and still not get arrested. A lot of them (especially Atta) were already known to intelligence agencies in Malaysia, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Germany, France, Czech Republic, Israel, and ofcourse the United States.
Information revealed by Sibel Edmonds (the most gagged person in US history) and Daniel Hopsicker show that the roles these terrorists played were much bigger then a bunch of American hating fanatics sitting and waiting for the right time to strike.
I could go on and on. My point is, don't ever try to label me as some dumb ass Ct'ist again.
Correct link: get indentified by Able Danger: http://www.abledangerblog.com/
I see. So your views hinge on basic racism. "Those Ehrabs and Mooooslims could never do something that hard! Us white folks musta helpded dem".
Eh, you're entitled to your opinion. At least an opinion based on racism against Muslims is better than an opinion based on blind hatred of the US government. Not much better, but better. I look forward to your evidence. You know, once you start producing some.
Ofcourse, I still find it disturbing that people like you would believe their government capable of intentional complicity in the murder of 3,000 citizens on their own soil. So I still think you're unbalanced. But like I said, you're a bit better than then the other bunch.
I see. So your views hinge on basic racism. "Those Ehrabs and Mooooslims could never do something that hard! Us white folks musta helpded dem".....At least an opinion based on racism against Muslims
Huh?!?
I don't get it, how was I being racist? I never wrote anything suggesting that those hijackers were framed.
I hope that you were just joking around when writing that.
I still find it disturbing that people like you would believe their government capable of intentional complicity in the murder of 3,000 citizens on their own soil.
I will never say that the US government was complicit in this attack, that is way too unrealistic, but one thing for sure is that major players in the White House, CIA, and the FBI messed up (or even halted) an investigation that was going smoothly. Was it intentional? If I say yes, then I'm going a little bit too far. Is one of the main people who screwed up trying to cover up years of negligence? Hell Yes. Was all that 'screwing up' an accident? That's what I'm trying to find. Read my last post, I made it clear that I believe there was something suspicious about the ongoing surveillance and investigations on the hijackers (before 9/11). Like I said before, the main terrorists were already indentified 19-20 months before 9/11. Intelligence agencies in Europe were all over them under the request of the CIA, they were handed plenty of info indicating that these guys were planning something. Early 2000 these hijackers start arriving in the US one by one, and they're still not stopped. Like the Washington Post first said after the attacks: "Federal authorities have been aware for years that suspected terrorists with ties to Osama bin Laden were receiving flight training at schools in the United States,". What they left unanswered was why they did nothing to shut it down.
I look forward to your evidence. You know, once you start producing some.
Most are questions rather then evidence. I don't feel like going into everything right now so I recommend you to read these two books (which present evidence and questions at the same time) if you want to see what my views on the 9/11 attacks are:
- Welcome To TerrorLand by Daniel Hopsicker
- Triple Cross by Peter Lance
Here is another thing you might want to read, it may be too long, it's not mentioned in the books above, but it's most definitely evidence. Ever heard of Randy Glass? If not, read these links and see how this man knew of the 9/11 plot since 1999:
(These are a must read)
- Randy Glass and Operation Diamondback
- Conversation with Randy Glass
I get ya. Guess I over-reacted. Lots of people seem to assume that no group of Muslim could ever pull off an operation like 9/11 without someone helping them along. After all they're just "a bunch of guys in a cave". I lumped you in with those idiots, but you seem to have a better basis for your opinion. I don't know enough about it comment, really. I DO know that the Patriot act was created mainly to fix the mistakes that you're talking about, by letting (and forcing) government agencies to better share their information and the status of ongoing operations. Outside of that, the subject doesn't interest me too much.
My personal opinion of the matter is best explained by Robert Hanlon:
"Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity."
Well, if you're quoting Peter Lance, surely you agree with his belief that Al Qaeda was responsible for 9/11, and that the US government was only responsible through incompetence? If so, welcome about. I'm not sure I believe Lances conclusions about Ali, but that's something that will be confirmed without too much difficulty.
Becareful, Critical Thinker, Alex is a waskly wabbit. Notice how he expects you to accept Lance's position on 9/11 and his information on Ali, and in the same breath he accepts Lance's position on 9/11 but not on Ali. This is not your typical denier, but one who has improved his tactics.
Alex Here is a question for you...Ofcourse, I still find it disturbing that people like you would believe their government capable of intentional complicity in the murder of 3,000 citizens on their own soil.
Do you accept the current EPA report on the air quality in New York City as being factual?
That is a just one case example out of many where the U.S. government purposely lied to its people for whatever reason which has lead to the deaths of many and I'm quite sure many many more. Is it 3000? Not yet. Could it be? I have no idea how many New Yorkers were exposed to that toxic dust cloud.
Do you undertand why that it is not a belief regarding 9/11 but a very real possibility?
Post a Comment
<< Home