RE: Another Hypothesis

From: Harvey Newstrom (mail@HarveyNewstrom.com)
Date: Wed Jan 01 2003 - 00:29:07 MST


Dehede011@aol.com wrote,
> mail@HarveyNewstrom.com writes:
> "In extreme cases, Bush and Ashcroft have argued that the military should
> hold a secret trial without even informing the court system of the event."
> ## You know, I sit and wonder what you could possibly be twisting
> into this misrepresentation? Could you possibly document this?

You need to look no further than the current case of Zacarias Moussaoui who
is currently on trial in federal court. The prosecutors refused to show
evidence to the judge or allow the main witnesses into the courtroom. The
judge finally delayed the trial and said they couldn't have a trial if the
court and the defense can't see the evidence or hear the witnesses. The
Bush Administration now wants to pull Moussaoui out of the civil court
system and put him through a military tribunal with no involvement from the
courts and without giving any information to the courts. The courts only
know about this trial because it has already started in the civil courts.
For future cases held in the secret military tribunals, the courts would not
even be informed that the event had occurred. A summary of this case from
CBS News is below.

This is current news. I can't imagine why you are so emphatically unaware
of these actions currently being taken by the Bush Administration and
Ashcroft in the prosecution of suspected terrorists and enemy combatants.

--
Harvey Newstrom, CISSP <http://HarveyNewstrom.com>
____________________________________________________________________________
____
>From CBS News:
<http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/11/07/news/opinion/courtwatch/main52851
5.shtml>
Or if it expires, from Google's cache:
<http://216.239.51.100/search?q=cache:5GlwIj9QVq4C:www.cbsnews.com/stories/2
002/11/07/news/opinion/courtwatch/main528515.shtml+&hl=en&ie=UTF-8>
A Secret Trial For Moussaoui?
By Andrew Cohen C MMII, CBS Worldwide Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Nov. 7, 2002
(CBS) Attorney Andrew Cohen analyzes legal issues for CBS News and
CBSNews.com.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
If you are licking your chops in anticipation of a high-profile trial in
federal court next year for Zacarias Moussaoui, an alleged conspirator in
the attacks on America, you may be disappointed. There is a strong chance
now that Moussaoui never will be put on trial in our civilian courts; that
instead he will simply be transferred into military custody and prosecuted
before a military tribunal. There are no legal impediments to such a
dramatic move and the administration can make a reasonable political case
for it as well.
The Bush administration faces the prospect of transferring Moussaoui from
federal custody to a military brig because his constitutional rights as a
capital defendant appear to be conflicting more and more directly with the
government's ongoing intelligence-gathering operations. As CBS News
Correspondent Jim Stewart first reported Wednesday, that conflict may soon
reach its moment of truth because of the capture of al Qaeda honcho Ramzi
bin-Alshihb, the man allegedly involved at the highest levels in the plan to
destroy the World Trade Center and Pentagon.
Now that the feds have bin-Alshihb in their custody and control, Moussaoui
has a constitutional right either to confront him as a prosecution witness
or simply rely upon his testimony at trial as an exculpatory witness. Either
way, though, the government must make bin-Alshihb available in some way to
Moussaoui and/or his lawyers. And it's not hard to understand why Moussaoui
would want to touch base with bin-Alshihb. If bin-Alshihb really was the key
9/11 planner, he would be in a wonderful position to explain or refute
Moussaoui's alleged role in that conspiracy.
In most criminal cases, this duty poses no problem for prosecutors - they
simply work it out with defense attorneys and the judge. In this case,
however, making bin-Alshihb available to the defendant presents a huge
problem. Bin-Alshihb isn't just a common co-conspirator, after all; he's an
enormous intelligence asset and, indeed, the Justice Department says it
won't make him available because he is currently being interrogated in a
secret location. Prosecutors are perfectly within their powers to refuse to
make bin-Alshihb available, but the price of that recalcitrance may be to
drop the charges against Moussaoui. He simply cannot be fairly tried under
the Constitution if prosecutors withhold his access to such an important
witness.
Prosecutors know it. Moussaoui's attorneys know it. And U.S. District Judge
Leonie M. Brinkema knows it, too, which may be why she has delayed the trial
in this case from September 2002 to January 2003, and now again to May 2003.
It would be one thing, of course, if dropping the charges against Moussaoui
for this reason forced the government to let him go. If that were truly the
alternative result here, the government surely would figure out a way to
make bin-Alshihb available in some way to Moussaoui. Perhaps bin-Alshihb
could be made available with Moussaoui's attorneys in the presence of a
military official (to make sure no secret, coded messages were passed) and
with a special master or magistrate assigned by the court (to make sure the
interview is on the up and up). And such a scenario still may be the
solution to this intractable legal problem.
But the White House has another option in the Moussaoui case that isn't
typically available in capital cases. And so the Justice Department doesn't
have to bend nearly as far to meet its constitutional duties while at the
same time achieving its prosecutorial objective. Since Moussaoui is not a US
citizen, since "jeopardy" for purposes of the "double jeopardy" clause of
the Constitution has not yet attached in his case, and since the government
already has labeled him a terrorist, law enforcement officials simply could
hand Moussaoui over to the military for a tribunal proceeding authorized
last year by an executive order from President Bush.
A tribunal proceeding for Moussaoui would - in one swift, bold stroke -
obliterate the legal problem of what to do with bin-Alshihb. It would do so
either by precluding Moussaoui's right to interview his purported al Qaeda
buddy or permitting a limited interview to take place in such secret
surroundings that the government's intelligence-related concerns would be
sated. Also, a tribunal proceeding would not be public so the details of
bin-Alshihb's testimony, if used, never would see the light of day. And,
obviously, because of the procedural rules in place for tribunal
proceedings, the government would be even more likely than it already is to
gain a favorable result after trial.
That's the legal dynamic. The political dynamic is a bit cloudier, but by no
means tricky for the White House. It's true that the government might take
an initial public relations hit if Moussaoui suddenly were to disappear from
jail one night and turn up in a locked cell at the Norfolk Naval Base in
Virginia. After all, these same prosecutors for nearly one year now have
been preaching the importance of bringing Moussaoui to justice in public in
a federal court where he will be judged by Americans living in the shadow of
the Pentagon. To suddenly turn around and say "never mind" probably would
give ammunition to the administration's critics who say that Moussaoui is
destined to receive only a pretense of justice.
But there certainly was no great public outcry this summer when the
government settled its grievances with John Walker Lindh, the American
Taliban, because the feds didn't want to make available to his attorneys the
soldiers who captured him. And most folks, I suspect, will be fairly
delighted if Moussaoui disappears from public view and is judged by the
military in a closed proceeding. The administration has told us since last
Sept. 11 that it would use every process and procedure in its arsenal to
achieve its objectives. Taking Moussaoui out of the federal court system in
the middle of his case would be one of the clearest examples yet that
prosecutors meant what they said.


This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jan 15 2003 - 17:35:50 MST