home

Padilla and Moussaoui: Gov't. Seeks to Block Access to Witnesses

A federal judge ordered the Government to make three al Qaida witnesses, including Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and Ramzi Binalshibh, who are being held overseas in secret prisons where they likely have been tortured, available to Zacarias Moussaoui for interviews because they might have evidence that would show he was not part of the 9/11 attacks and might have evidence favorable to him on the issue of whether, if convicted, he should receive a sentence of life imprisonment or death. The Judge felt so strongly about this issue, that she ordered the Government be precluded from seeking death or introducing 9/11 evidence at his trial unless the Government made the three al Qaida members available for personal interviews.

The Government appealed and the Fourth Circuit agreed, but said written questions could take the place of live interviews. Moussaoui appealed to the Supreme Court which ultimately agreed that the witnesses should have been made available, but ruled the striking of the death penalty was too harsh a remedy.

Moussaoui then pleaded guilty to being a member of al Qaeda and providing material support to it, while denying he conspired to commit the 9/11 attacks and reserving the right to argue for life versus death at sentencing. The sentencing phase of the trial is set for January.

It's the same old song with Jose Padilla.

Government sources told the New York Times that the reason it did not charge Jose Padilla with the more serious offenses of planning to make a dirty bomb or attack targets within the U.S. is that it does not want to make two al Qaida witnesses, Shaikh Mohammed and Abu Zubaydah (another detainee the Government is holding in a secret overseas prison) available to the defense.

In other words, these men have been tortured, their stories are suspect and the U.S. wants to prevent defense lawyers from having access to them.

The Christian Science Monitor has more:

The anonymous sources quoted by the Times say that the Bush administration decided not to include the more serious charges because the two top Al Qaeda men could "never be used as witnesses," and their testimony was the only thing linking Padilla to the bombing plots. Officials were concerned that "it could open up charges from defense lawyers that their earlier statements resulted from torture."

The Guardian reported Thursday that the Bush administration was also worried that if the men were questioned, they could expose classified information about the CIA's secret prison system, located in other countries around the world, which was recently uncovered by human rights groups.

The Miami Herald has a similar report on Padilla, adding that Bush feared an adverse ruling by the Supreme Court on its enemy combatant policy.

The Toronton Star says Bush is "skirting close to the line" on torture.

Arthur has lots more. Here too.

At this point, I simply have no words left to describe these horrors adequately and in terms that are sufficiently damning. Bush and his gang have very significantly damaged the United States and its reputation around the world for generations to come. God can forgive them if He chooses. The rest of us should not. Indeed, if we are ever to recover from this catastrophe, we must not.

< 1,000 th U.S. Execution Next Week | The Difference Between Bush and Jack Murtha >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    I have never understood why The Bush League has decided to approach these matters in this way. If you have a great case, then what's the big deal!? Try your damned case the old-fashioned way - by the friggin' book! However, if you have your typical Ashcroftian case, I guess I can understand the fear and loathing of the rule of law, specifically the rules of evidence. My guess is that the case against Moussaoui looks a bit like Swiss cheese and that against Padilla is only slightly better. That's the thing about trials - there are no guaranteed wins. And that is simply something that is utterly unacceptable to The Bush League. So, if you can't guarantee a win at trial, then stonewall and subvert the rule of law in the process, pushing your chances closer and closer to getting that elusive win. After all, isn't this the raison d'etre for Gitmo? (Jimaka, that's YOUR cue!).

    Re: Padilla and Moussaoui: Gov't. Seeks to Block A (none / 0) (#2)
    by The Heretik on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:26 PM EST
    Rule of law is for those we catch, unless it is inconvenient for us. In which case we will make things up as we go. More Padilla background and thoughts at Dirty

    Re: Padilla and Moussaoui: Gov't. Seeks to Block A (none / 0) (#3)
    by Andreas on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:26 PM EST
    "Bush and his gang" do not represent the people of the United States. They represent the capitalist class.

    Re: Padilla and Moussaoui: Gov't. Seeks to Block A (none / 0) (#4)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:27 PM EST
    Lavocat - Check the archives. I have always supported trials in the US criminal justice system for all US citizens. The rest get tribunals, which over 500 have received. The link also details the review process. Neither of these processes were made available by the terrorists to those at the hotel wedding party in Jordan, the children being in Iraq and those who had their heads sawed off by those shouting "God is great" as if He is smiling down on their eternal damnation qualifying activities. Those found to be Enemy Combatants (EC's) stay in GITMO; some may be charged and tried for more specific crimes. And some get released. And some of those released are killed or re-captured fighting against coalition forces. What the EC doesn't get is what historically such people received, which was execution. As for your claim about the weak case, it was so weak that:
    (From the Post) Moussaoui then pleaded guilty to being a member of al Qaeda and providing material support to it, while denying he conspired to commit the 9/11 attacks and reserving the right to argue for life versus death at sentencing.
    Evidently he desires to plead for his life rather than look forward to those 72 virgins and eternity in paradise.

    Re: Padilla and Moussaoui: Gov't. Seeks to Block A (none / 0) (#5)
    by Repack Rider on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:27 PM EST
    Those found to be Enemy Combatants (EC's) stay in GITMO; some may be charged and tried for more specific crimes. What is the procedure for making this determination? Does the prisoner have any opportunity to confront his accusers, offer exculpatory evidence, expose evidence obtained by extralegal means (torture), or question the means by which he arrived at the prison? Or is he guilty unless he can prove his innocence, but denied the right to do so?

    Re: Padilla and Moussaoui: Gov't. Seeks to Block A (none / 0) (#6)
    by john horse on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:27 PM EST
    In the case of Padilla, when he was given a chance to prove his innocence the government dropped the charges (they did charge him for lesser offenses).

    Re: Padilla and Moussaoui: Gov't. Seeks to Block A (none / 0) (#7)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:27 PM EST
    Repack - Well they are allowed to be there. Some do, some don't. All convictions are reviewed, and some are released, of which some go back to trying to kill us. Of course those captives who are beheaded, children killed by booby-trapped dolls, bystanders killed while at weddings, etc., etc. Well, they always participate. But hey, why should these people have rights? After all, some are journalists, some are girls... and we know how much the terrorists respect females..and some just want to get married... criminals and infidels all.

    Re: Padilla and Moussaoui: Gov't. Seeks to Block A (none / 0) (#8)
    by Sailor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:27 PM EST
    I have always supported trials in the US criminal justice system for all US citizens.
    So aside from your strawmen about how fair the gitmo process is, you believe that padilla should be afforded the same rights as any other citizen? The ones the go'vt has denied him for 3 years and continues to do so? And does anyone think that if they were kidnapped, shipped to a torture center and held w/o charges for 2 years that if they were let out they might just be mad enough to go and kill the people who put them there? (BTW, 12 out of 200 released and recaptured.) And the argument that because criminals commit crimes w/o out offering their victims due process the gov't shouldn't offer due process to criminals is against everything the US was founded on.

    Re: Padilla and Moussaoui: Gov't. Seeks to Block A (none / 0) (#9)
    by Sailor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:27 PM EST
    Not for nothing, but bushco has argued that:
    "The term 'enemy combatant,' " according to a Defense Department order last year, includes anyone "part of or supporting Taliban or Al Qaeda forces or associated forces."

    In a hearing in December in a case brought by detainees imprisoned in the naval facility in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, a judge questioned a Justice Department official about the limits of that definition. The official, Brian D. Boyle, said the hostilities in question were global and might continue for generations.

    The judge, Joyce Hens Green of the Federal District Court in Washington, asked a series of hypothetical questions about who might be detained as an enemy combatant under the government's definition.

    What about "a little old lady in Switzerland who writes checks to what she thinks is a charitable organization that helps orphans in Afghanistan but really is a front to finance Al Qaeda activities?" she asked.

    And what about a resident of Dublin "who teaches English to the son of a person the C.I.A. knows to be a member of Al Qaeda?"

    And "what about a Wall Street Journal reporter, working in Afghanistan, who knows the exact location of Osama bin Laden but does not reveal it to the United States government in order to protect her source?"

    Mr. Boyle said the military had the power to detain all three people as enemy combatants.
    Get that? Even if you didn't know and had no way of knowing, bushco could hold you for decades. (p.s. Sorry TL for the bandwidth, but I couldn't see any editorial way of breaking up that piece from your link. My apologies.)

    Re: Padilla and Moussaoui: Gov't. Seeks to Block A (none / 0) (#10)
    by john horse on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:27 PM EST
    PPJ
    All convictions are reviewed, and some are released...
    You don't have a clue about what you are talking about, do you? Being determined an "enemy combatant" is not the same thing as being "convicted". If it is, tell me what crime or crimes they were convicted of? You say "all convictions are reviewed". This implies that there is a separate procedure after the determination of being an enemy combatant. If so, name me a single case where a detainee who was determined to be an enemy combatant had his case reviewed? For you it doesn't matter whether these detainees receive a fair trial. It probably doesn't even matter if they are guilty or innocent. Name me a single detainee who "beheaded" anyone, or blew up any children, etc? You can't, can you? Your rant reminds me of something the widow of a murder victim once told her preacher. When asked if she was absolutely sure that the man accused did it, she said that "one of them (meaning a black man) killed my husband, and one of them will have to pay."

    Re: Padilla and Moussaoui: Gov't. Seeks to Block A (none / 0) (#11)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:27 PM EST
    Sailor - Check the archives. I have always said US citizens should have all the rights of a US citizen. And you write tons and tons of words, yet nothing about victims. Why is that, Sailor? John Horse - Parse away. Some have been released and then killed/recaptured as I noted. You write:
    This implies that there is a separate procedure after the determination of being an enemy combatant. If so, name me a single case where a detainee who was determined to be an enemy combatant had his case reviewed?
    Special Defense Department Briefing on Status of Military Tribunals
    Now as you'll recall also, after the tribunal the results from the CSRTs to go the convening authority for review. And we have an administrative review to make sure that they have been conducted properly, all data considered, and they go to Admiral McGarrah, and he has concurred with 228 that these detainees should continue to be classified as enemy combatants. Now you'll recall earlier we had one detainee that the tribunal determined not to be an enemy combatant or no longer considered to be an enemy combatant, and that detainee was released last September. So there's now a second detainee that a CSRT has determined should no longer be classified as an enemy combatant, and Admiral McGarrah has concurred with that finding.
    BTW - I find your attempt to turn the thread into a racist attack disgusting. After reading it, I understood this:
    Western children of the Sixties like this sort of talk. They look for a narrative based on the American civil rights movement or the struggle against apartheid. They care little for economic achievement or political pluralism. They are suspicious of any society with a Western appearance, and in any contest between people with differing skin colours, they prefer the darker. They buy into the idea, now promoted by all Arab regimes and by Muslim firebrands with a permanent interest in deflecting attention from their own societies' problems, that Israel is the greatest problem of all.


    They are suspicious of any society with a Western appearance,
    Personally, I am suspicious of anyone that tries to defend torture and detainment without trial. That's barbarism, no matter the appearance or color.

    Re: Padilla and Moussaoui: Gov't. Seeks to Block A (none / 0) (#13)
    by Sailor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:28 PM EST
    Sailor - Check the archives. I have always said US citizens should have all the rights of a US citizen.
    Ohh baby, say it loud, say it proud; Padilla has the right to a bail hearing! Padilla has the right to confront his accusers! Padilla has the right to effective counsel! (want links, I'll give you links.) Since you have endorsed all those things, then please write your congressman and senator that you want a fair trial for Padilla and protest that he has been held incommunicado for 3 YEARS in a military prison.

    Re: Padilla and Moussaoui: Gov't. Seeks to Block A (none / 0) (#14)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:28 PM EST
    Sailor - I have also called for the death penalty if convicted as a traitor. You see, along with those rights, I also believe in responsibility and duty in protecting the country. On the other hand, EC status merely rates you confinement, unless convicted of a greater crime.

    Re: Padilla and Moussaoui: Gov't. Seeks to Block A (none / 0) (#15)
    by john horse on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:28 PM EST
    PPJ Reback and myself have raised some questions about the fairness of tribunal procedures As someone who favors this system, I don't think it unreasonable to ask you to explain how they are supposed to work. The fact that you haven't shows that you either don't know or you do know but don't have the courage to admit that you favor a system that is rigged. You also mentioned a number of reprehensible acts committed by terrorists in Iraq. My question is simple. Name me a single person held at Guantanamo who committed any of the acts that you mention? Do you have any evidence that anyone committed any crimes? If you don't, then my conclusion is that you base your support for the suspension of human rights upon the belief that one of "them" did it, so one of "them" must pay. Sorry if I have little sympathy for your crocodile tears you cry about being unjustly accused of racism. I think you should put your beliefs on the table and take responsibility for them. Finally, take a look at what happened in the case of Padilla. The Bush administration had to drop the more serious terrorism charges against him because he wanted to call a witness who was a detainee and whose testimony was reported to have been obtained by torture. The government dropped the charges because it realized that obtaining information through torture makes criminal prosecution more difficult, if not impossible. Why do you favor a system that makes prosecution of terrorists more difficult, if not impossible?

    Re: Padilla and Moussaoui: Gov't. Seeks to Block A (none / 0) (#16)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:28 PM EST
    John H - I also favor the use of MRI's and CAT Scans in certain medical conditions, but I would be lost in trying to give an exact explanation of how they work. But I do know what they do. They identify medical conditions thus helping the Doctor treat the associated disease. Same with tribunals, so no I am not going to get into a discussion on the exact methods of tribunals. I would say that removing people who are enemies from the field of battle and not killing them is certainly more humane than executing them as guerrillas, the traditional method. As to your comment about having to drop charges because of torture, etc.; there is no proof, just a claim. Do you expect me to just accept it? Now if you want to accept my claim that based on available evidence a reasonable person would agree that Saddam and OBL were working together and Saddam was trying to get back into the WMD business, perhaps we can talk. Of course if the witness claimed torture, how would it be proven? At least we have a ton of circumstantial evidence re OBL and Saddam and WMDs. As for your question regarding my personal knowledge of any crimes committed, I will answer you with a question. Do you have any knowledge that the ECs are not ECs, or have not committed other crimes? On the other hand, we have solid evidence of the acts in the ME that I mentioned, and these people come from that common pool of death and destruction. You seem to think that the EC is an individual who is charged with robbing a QuickiMart and we must treat him as if this was a criminal justice matter. It is not. The EC is a person who has taken up arms against the US. That is the “crime,” if you want to call it that. If he has committed more specific acts against us, then those can be charged and tried separately. Really, your positions are outlandish

    Re: Padilla and Moussaoui: Gov't. Seeks to Block A (none / 0) (#17)
    by soccerdad on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:28 PM EST
    Really, your positions are outlandish
    Not compared to the crap you peddle. Pot, etc

    Re: Padilla and Moussaoui: Gov't. Seeks to Block A (none / 0) (#18)
    by Sailor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:28 PM EST
    I would say that removing people who are enemies from the field of battle
    provide links on what percentage of gulag detainees were captured on the '\field of battle.'