9/11 Trials Create Nasty Legal Spat Among Defense Lawyers

Newsweek:

A nasty spat has broken out among defense lawyers over an issue that is likely to be front and center in the upcoming 9/11 trial in New York: who actually speaks for the defendants?

New York defense lawyer Scott Fenstermaker has made big headlines in recent days after telling The New York Times that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (KSM) and four accused 9/11 co-conspirators intend to plead not guilty in their upcoming trial so they can use the courtroom as a forum to attack U.S. foreign policy...

Read the whole story: Newsweek

Comments

[climate hawk]

Has anyone noticed that this guy looks exactly like Rosie O'donell with a mustache?

[jws2346]

I hate to say this, but I think we're just now opening up a big can or worms

[DRaymond]

For all the people who say that this is going to be a show trial...I hope so.

America will show the world that we are a nation of laws and courts.

America will show that our constitution and legal system applies to all.

America will show the world that these people aren't heroes but calculated murderers.

America will show the world that there is no doubt regarding the role these people played in 9/11.

America will show that Justice is not the same as Vengenance.

So to all you naysayers, why shouldn't America show these things?

[EmmaJ76]

DRaymond, well said.

[jws2346]

Err.., I don't think it's such a good ideer to show the rest of the World if you're caught in a combat situation against us, you're tried in a civilian court.

[sirhurtzallot]

In my opinion it's a fantastic idea to hold the trials in a civilian court opposed to a military tribunal. It will likely expose the inhumane nature of Khalid Sheikh Mohammeds treatment while being questioned without being mirandized and hopefully shed more light on his evil captors acting like rabid animals. He needs to fore go legal counsel and represents himself and put his American education on full display. I just hope he doesn't waste tax payers money by retaining legal counsel and represents himself, to not muddy the facts. I don't understand how they can still retain him when he wasn't read his rights to begin with.

[Gidster]

If you are a wanted criminal, a civil trial is the answer, whether you were caught by Interpol, or the US Army.

[Aerows]

This may end up being a show trial, but the fact that Cheney and Co. are shaking in their boots at the thought of these guys speaking in public tells me that some interesting facts will come to light.

[keepemhonest]

That is EXACTLY what I have been saying. Me thinks ChainE protests too much.

[sirhurtzallot]

Yeah, Cheney and his thugs are shaking in their boots. I haven't seen nor heard fromthese Neanderthals since he left office.

[tnkeating]

I would welcome that forum, there is nothing they could justify for doing what they did. They wouldn't need to pay for the executions, there will be plenty of volunteers, myself included.

[Gidster]

It is a fallacy, no defendant uses a courtroom as a stage to proselytize, or recruit etc.

He will be forced to answer questions put to him, nothing more.

[101CheshireCat]

Ringling Brothers are proud of the tradition they began in America and they are thankful that this administration will outdo them.

[keepemhonest]

101

It is better to have an Administration that keeps us smiling as opposed to "W's" C R I M I N A LS.

[101CheshireCat]

New American Policy:

Capture a combatant on the battle field, mirandize them and hand them a Philadelphia lawyer.

[keepemhonest]

101,

Again showing our lack of an education. The "W" administration started mirandizing them on the field in 2005. Why didn't YOU complain then?

[Gidster]

Because it was a Republican, there was a reality shift last November, now everything done by Republicans is/was good, anything done by Democrats, is bad......

Arguing with ignorant Jingoists is like herding cats.

[VikingQuest]

Everyone who knows the situation knows it in the back of their mind that all this "rule of law" or "civilian courts are right for these people" is all a bunch of garbage . . .

This is a show trial, nothing more.

If it was a real trial:

1. We wouldn't have the President making comments on how the suspects are already guilty . . .
2. The AG saying that if they were found innocent we would still detain them . . .
3. All 10 of suspects would have been sent there, not 5 to civilian and 5 to military . . .

ERIC HOLDER: I certainly think that under the regime that we are contemplating, the potential for detaining people under the laws of war, that ability -- we would retain that ability.
(In other words, if they somehow got off . . . we can and will still detain them)

BARACK OBAMA: “WHEN he’s convicted and WHEN the death penalty is applied to him"
(So he's already been found guilty)

[EmmaJ76]

I agree, the comments made by Holder and even PBO are questionable, but the system DOES work, and has worked. We just have to hope san1ty prevails.

[VikingQuest]

Like I just said, what's the point of running these guys through a 5 year trial if at the end they are found innocent or let off on a technicality . . . then we still detain them as enemy combatants.

Guilty or innocent, these guys have ZERO chance to walk free . . .

[girlie58]

Here we go again..trying to be politically correct by bringing these war criminals to NYC, where they can "rub it in" to the american people and be glorified by their comrades. Is our hatred for the previous administration greater than the safety of our country? We know that this move has absolutely no benefit to America. Only the enemy benefits from this because they are emboldened and given recognition by the u.s. administration.

[EmmaJ76]

A history lesson would be good before you foot gets in it further.

Heard of Richard Reid, the alleged "shoe b0mb3r", Jose Padilla, an A! Q@3da agent, and Zacarias Moussaoui, otherwise known as the "20th H1j@ck3r" in the 9/11 attacks - ALL t3rror1sts, all tried in Fed Court and ALL under Bush's watch.

How about Ramzi Yousef? He was the planner of the 93 WTC Bombing - and he was successfully tried in a Fed court to life - 200 and something years I think the full sentence, without a chance of parole, stuck in a supermax prison.

There have been over 195 t3rror1sts convicted in a Fed Court - successfully.

And to give an example of the ineptitude of the military courts, I suggest you google Salim Hamdan.

This may help: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/7547261.stm

So please take your "this has no benefits" rhetoric out of the equation because it does not stand up to scrutiny.

[VikingQuest]

The Zacarias Moussaoui trial lasted 5 years and was a complete clown show.

[rollingdivision]

As performers in the biggest show trial in decades it isn't surprising the actors are having spats about their roles.

[holyghostie]

Great. A gov't that refuses to seal our borders from incursion, allows these guys a civilian trial in NYC.

Eric Holder is a disappointment in my opinion.

[mitsie]

For God sakes get over this people. The trial will go forward in Fed court, and the last I knew cameras were not allowed. Who cares if these killers want to speak out against American policy, do you think that's going to score big with a jury? I hope the world does learn what our judical system is about, and it's sad that these Republicans are only using this for their own selfish political purposes. Shame on them.

[rollingdivision]

The stage is outside of the court.

[DRaymond]

And that is what gag orders are for.

[Gidster]

So Republican pundits can spin speculative fiction until the cows come home, There will be no forum, no publicity, no spotlight for the bad guys.

[crayola 08b]

i really wish they'd stop using this picture of ron jeremy. :P

[serena1313]

The US justice system is one of the best in the world. Approximately 200 terrorist suspects have been successfully tried, convicted and sentenced in the US. Unless the courts decided differently, defendants cannot simply give a dissertation on US foreign policy or any other subject during trial.

So it is really difficult to give much credence to Scott Fenstermaker's sudden inexplicable loss of confidence in the system.

[Mattie]

yes, it will work wonderful in this case. When Holder was asked what would happen if they were found innocent, he remarked, "well we would never let them go". Tell me what is the point of this, if it's just for show. Guilty or innocent, we are keeping them in custody. That doesn't sound like a great system to me. Let them stand before a military court, and take their punishment, we don't need a show trial, where the outcome has already been determined.

[Gidster]

Military court? For a civilian crime?

The Bush era propaganda has worked. Terrorism is a civilian crime.

Perpetuated by and against civilians. Al-Qaeda is not a country any more than the Mormons are.

[jasonfebery]

This is no reason we should avoid trying them. I have no doubt our justice system is stronger than their hatred.

http://www.jasonfebery.wordpress.com

[Whitley2009]

Faved. Right, Jason, there is no reason for the Republican "be afraid" avoidance.. If these people are going to be tried, found guilty, and either executed or imprisoned, we Americans should be sure we can show the world that they have had the best legal defense and best court system in the world for their trials.

We can best illustrate the fairness and effectiveness of our system by trying them in the city they attacked and killed 3,000 Americans. We can best test them by allowing juries in these cities to judge their guilt or innocence.

[Mattie]

What don't you get, the Attorney General has stated if they are found innocent, we won't be releasing them. Why are we letting a jury decide their guilt or innocence as you say, when regardless of the outcome, we will be holding them indefinetly. It's a show trial. Is that justice to you, if someone is found innocent, which I don't think these men are, they are put right back in jail. That will certainly show the world how the best court system in the world works.