AP: Don’t Worry About Those Terror Trials
[Guest post by DRJ]
The AP reassures Americans not to worry about the Obama Administration’s civilian terror cases because Zacarias Moussaoui’s case went so well:
“Zacarias Moussaoui was a clown who could not keep his mouth shut, according to his old al-Qaida boss, Khalid Shaikh Mohammed. But Moussaoui was surprisingly tame when tried for the 9/11 attacks – never turning the courtroom into the circus of anti-U.S. tirades that some fear Mohammed will create at his trial in New York.
And that wasn’t the only surprise during Moussaoui’s six-week 2006 sentencing trial here – a proceeding that might foreshadow how the upcoming 9/11 trial in New York will go.
Skeptics who feared prosecutors would be hamstrung by how much evidence was secret were stunned at the enormous amount of classified data that was scrubbed, under pressure from the judge, into a public version acceptable to both sides.
Prosecutors were surprised when they failed to get the death penalty – by the vote of one juror.
No one was more surprised than Moussaoui himself: At the end he concluded an al-Qaida member like him could get a fair trial in a U.S. court.”
The AP cautions us not to expect a speedy trial because Moussaoui’s case “churned through years of pretrial hearings and appeals” before he plead guilty in 2005. During that time, his behavior wasn’t quite so tame:
“During the long run-up to trial, Moussaoui’s abusive tirades in handwritten motions and outbursts in hearings created concerns the jury trial would devolve into chaos. Brinkema threatened to lock him in a separate room watching by video if he tried that.
Mindful of that threat, Moussaoui sat quietly at his separate table flanked by deputy marshals. On the few occasions he was called upon to speak, Brinkema kept him tightly on topic.
His theatrics were confined to one-liners – like “Victory for Moussaoui! God curse you all!” – that he tossed off to spectators as he left the courtroom after the jury departed for lunch or the day.”
So don’t worry, Americans. After all, what can go wrong?
— DRJ
PS — Don’t worry about the attorneys either. They can’t all be like Lynne Stewart:
“A federal appeals court on Tuesday ordered a disbarred civil rights lawyer convicted in a terrorism case to go to prison and said a judge must consider whether her sentence of a little more than two years behind bars was too lenient.
Lynne Stewart, 70, has been free on appeal since she was sentenced in 2006. The three-judge panel of the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals issued its nearly 200-page ruling almost two years after hearing arguments in the case.
Stewart was sentenced to two years and four months in prison after she was found guilty of passing messages between her client, Sheik Omar Abdel-Rahman, and senior members of an Egyptian-based terrorist organization.”
PPS — The AP article understates the chaos of the lengthy Moussaoui proceedings. Read this Wiki page to get an idea of the circus it really was.
The mind boggles at the stupidity of this AP story.
SPQR (26be8b) — 11/17/2009 @ 5:19 pmSo now the AP is going to let terrorists decide whether or not our judicial system is fair?
JD (9769aa) — 11/17/2009 @ 5:23 pm“The AP reassures Americans not to worry about the Obama Administration’s civilian terror cases because Zacarias Moussaoui’s case went so well”
Yeah, right.
Thousands of Americans have been killed over the years by Muslim fanatics who don’t wear uniforms…and not one of them has been executed by our fabulous criminal justice system, even though just the act of being caught out of uniform is punishable by death under the laws and customs of war.
The system is a total joke. Innocent Americans die…guilty terrorists get three hots and a cot.
Dave Surls (47fe71) — 11/17/2009 @ 5:23 pmI like to live in America ….
nk (df76d4) — 11/17/2009 @ 5:32 pmI meant that seriously. Sure, Due Process is a defenfdant’s right but it’s society’s benefit. We want the person who’s guilty to be put away.
As far as Lynne Stewart goes, she’s 70 years old, I hear. Dr. Alzheimer will take care of her for us.
nk (df76d4) — 11/17/2009 @ 5:36 pmSo this wasn’t America when Quirin was still good constitutional law, nk?
SPQR (26be8b) — 11/17/2009 @ 5:43 pmNo way – I want that piece of sh-t to die in prison. What she did was beyond contemptible, it was an act of war against her own country. Her public statements after being charged should be used against her in court – she’s beyond scum.
Dmac (a964d5) — 11/17/2009 @ 5:45 pmStewart originally was sentenced to 2 years, nk. A woman’s life expectancy is well over 80 years. Do you really think the sentence will be adjusted to 10-20 years?
DRJ (dee47d) — 11/17/2009 @ 5:47 pmNo one was more surprised than Moussaoui himself: At the end he concluded an al-Qaida member like him could get a fair trial in a U.S. court.”
So we are to let the illogical determination of a despicable criminal decide whether a trial was (and future ones) are fair?
The natural conclusion of this thinking is if Zacarias M’s trial had ended with that one juror voting guilty, and the death penalty given, it would have proven that it is indeed impossible to receive a fair trial in the U.S. courts.
Brilliant. It’s stunning the AP gives credibility to this. It makes me question their own sense of reality and frankly, even their morality.
Dana (e9ba20) — 11/17/2009 @ 5:50 pmDana – You should be very concerned when you are thinking along the same lines as me.
JD (9769aa) — 11/17/2009 @ 5:52 pmIt doesn’t mention the fact, although the Wiki article mentions it, but the judge will determine whether this gets out of hand. If you get an OJ judge, look out !
Personally, I think this may be reversed. Holder has to testify before Congress tomorrow. He may be looking behind him to see if that bus is coming.
Mike K (2cf494) — 11/17/2009 @ 6:01 pmGov Paterson says that the White House told him about the possibility of this happening almost 6 months ago. Yesterday, Holder says this was all his decisioni and made it without input from the White House. If they knew about the chance of this happening 6 months ago, why wait until now to announce it?
JD (9769aa) — 11/17/2009 @ 6:07 pmComment by DRJ — 11/17/2009 @ 5:47 pm
She was sentenced to 28-months, the prosecution asked for 30-years!
AD - RtR/OS! (138fbd) — 11/17/2009 @ 6:20 pmEither way, she should never see the outside of the walls again.
Clever little Associated Press propaganda whores. See what they did there?
happyfeet (b919e7) — 11/17/2009 @ 6:24 pm“So don’t worry, Americans. After all, what can go wrong? ”
Theatrics and abusive tirades. That’s what folks are afraid of?
imdw (efa369) — 11/17/2009 @ 7:02 pmFear leads to slavery.
nk (df76d4) — 11/17/2009 @ 7:03 pmDaddy Soros must have scared the little president man something awful.
happyfeet (b919e7) — 11/17/2009 @ 7:06 pmimdw remains consistent.
JD (9769aa) — 11/17/2009 @ 7:08 pmWhy did we ever abandon long-standing legal customs?
Are people really ignorant of history?
Michael Ejercito (6a1582) — 11/17/2009 @ 7:09 pmThere many reasons why I get kicked off juries, but one is certainly that I woould not send a 70-year old woman to prison.
nk (df76d4) — 11/17/2009 @ 7:14 pmHow about a 60-year-old or a 50-year-old? What’s your cut-off age for women being responsible for their actions?
DRJ (dee47d) — 11/17/2009 @ 7:16 pm4
JD (9769aa) — 11/17/2009 @ 7:23 pmMaybe 5
JD (9769aa) — 11/17/2009 @ 7:26 pmEven monsters deserve lawyers, but passing messages between terrorists is traitorous. It’s a serious crime, and the punishment should be serious. We’re talking about life or death. These terrorists have caused real harm, even after being in US Custody.
Dustin (bb61e3) — 11/17/2009 @ 7:44 pmThere many reasons why I get kicked off juries, but one is certainly that I woould not send a 70-year old woman to prison.
70 is the new 60. I’d send her.
Dana (e9ba20) — 11/17/2009 @ 7:45 pm“It’s a serious crime”
Not when it’s committed by someone like Lynne Stewart, who’s joined at the hip with the Democrat Party.
Then it’s hardly a crime at all.
Dave Surls (47fe71) — 11/17/2009 @ 7:52 pmLeftist lawyers have been passing information back and forth at least since the 1960s, and it happened all over Europe and the US then. It’s a time-honored trick–although I hate to use the word honor here.
Patricia (b05e7f) — 11/17/2009 @ 7:59 pmOld age doesn’t mitigate atrocities.
Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (0ea407) — 11/17/2009 @ 7:59 pmNK and JD,
It’s obvious you are the soft-hearted fathers of girls. I applaud your dedication but please don’t sit on a jury with a female defendant.
DRJ (dee47d) — 11/17/2009 @ 8:00 pmThere many reasons why I get kicked off juries, but one is certainly that I woould not send a 70-year old woman to prison.
You’re certainly entitled to your opinion, but by that reasoning our currently imprisoned former Governor should have been given a suspended sentence. No dice IMHO.
Dmac (a964d5) — 11/17/2009 @ 8:04 pmI am still hiding under my desk waiting for Dana to chuck a shoe at me.
JD (9769aa) — 11/17/2009 @ 8:05 pmI’ll let you know when it’s safe to come out, JD!
Dana (e9ba20) — 11/17/2009 @ 8:11 pmSomeone once told me that there is never a correct answer when the question involves a woman’s age or weight.
JD (9769aa) — 11/17/2009 @ 8:13 pmThere being no correct answer is not the worst of it. Any answer you give will be offensive, and will be taken in a manner that will cause you the most grief.
JD (9769aa) — 11/17/2009 @ 8:19 pmFor those who haven’t seen this great cartoon:
icr (304f90) — 11/18/2009 @ 4:32 amhttp://townhall.com/cartoons/cartoonist/MichaelRamirez/2009/11/1
JD can speak for himslef, but my weakness for women is a thing of song and legend. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0_v7aJCwGLQ (English subtitles, I’m like the second guy sung about.)
nk (df76d4) — 11/18/2009 @ 5:46 amShorter conservatives:
In the end we need more show trials. Justice isn’t supposed to be messy. It’s supposed to run like a Soviet trial during the Purge: an “arrest,” a confession, a execution…all in a day’s work.
John Adams is in embarrassment to the Founding Fathers for defending despised people in a circus-like atmosphere!
timb (449046) — 11/18/2009 @ 6:09 amTim, the show trial is being put on by your guys. Obama and Holder have already announced that KSM will not be released if he is acquitted. I know everything conservatives do is evil but this might not be the best example for you.
Mike K (2cf494) — 11/18/2009 @ 6:37 am“No one was more surprised than Moussaoui himself: At the end he concluded an al-Qaida member like him could get a fair trial in a U.S. court.”
That’s the point isn’t it? To undermine anything resembling popular support for Al Qaeda around the world.
Why are you afraid of living in a free country, by the rules and obligations of open government and law? The right always votes for strong leaders or at least those who huff and puff. Bush and Cheney were cowards who strutted and posed. You can’t say they made us safer, because they didn’t. From Afghanistan to Iraq to Katrina, they broke the law, or merely broke the government and posed for the cameras. From a comment at TPM : “Let me get this straight: we kept KSM and his buddies in Gitmo for eight years, no trial, no process, under harsh conditions including torture — and now that we’re finally giving them a trial in civilian court, NOW Al-Qaeda wants to retaliate? NOW they’re going to kidnap the mayor’s daughter and demand that KSM be released? It doesn’t even make sense on its own terms.” That’s got it about right.
Willingness to admit mistakes makes you stronger, not weaker. Stronger in the minds of your friends, and in the minds of your enemies as well. Whether Obama forgets that sometimes (or often) or is forced to play by coward’s rules doesn’t matter. The right proudly defends simplicity over responsibility.
bored again (d80b5a) — 11/18/2009 @ 9:04 amCopying and pasting wall o’ text from other places is soooooooo original.
JD (236586) — 11/18/2009 @ 9:25 amNot just that, but bored again recycles a stupid argument as well as an unoriginal one. Their premise is that AQ attacks because they feel they are being treated unfairly. This is accepted thinking on the left.
The fact is, AQ may take advantage of the New York venue because the spotlight will be on and they will look weak if they cannot.
I wouldn’t claim AQ does not have greivances, just that those don’t decide whether or how they attack. The Spanish made the assunption they could mollify AQ. It didn’t play out like that, did it?
spongeworthy (c2e8fe) — 11/18/2009 @ 9:58 ambored again, your 9:04AM comment is full of the stupidest of your many stupid lies.
Meanwhile, for the adults, McCarthy debunks AG Holder’s ludicrous testimony.
SPQR (26be8b) — 11/18/2009 @ 9:59 amI thought they hated us because we are/were trespassing on Sacred Gound on the Arabian Peninsula?
AD - RtR/OS! (1397fe) — 11/18/2009 @ 10:24 amComment by SPQR — 11/18/2009 @ 9:59 am
Debunks???
AD - RtR/OS! (1397fe) — 11/18/2009 @ 10:32 amThat is a World-Class Fisking!
Hmmm, I’m getting the nasty feeling that I want this NY trial to go forward – and soon. Certainly before Nov. of 2012. This thing should blow sky high in the Administration’s face. Could it be that their arrogance will come back to haunt them before the next election cycle?
Perchance to dream ….
Robert N. (070cb0) — 11/18/2009 @ 10:47 am