The liberals must be dancing in the streets. NEW YORK â The five men facing trial in the Sept. 11 attacks will plead not guilty so that they can air their criticisms of U.S. foreign policy, the lawyer for one of the defendants said Sunday. Scott Fenstermaker, the lawyer for accused terrorist Ali Abd al-Aziz Ali, said the men would not deny their role in the 2001 attacks but "would explain what happened and why they did it." The U.S. Justice Department announced earlier this month that Ali and four other men accused of murdering nearly 3,000 people in the nation's deadliest terrorist attack will face a civilian federal trial just blocks from the World Trade Center site. Ali, also known as Ammar al-Baluchi, is a nephew of professed 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. Mohammed, Ali and the others will explain "their assessment of American foreign policy," Fenstermaker said. "Their assessment is negative," he said. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091122/ap_on_re_us/us_sept11_trial_defendants
How long will it take to be able to seat a jury satisfactory to both sides? Perhaps one can't be found... ?? If they are charged but can't be tried (no satisfactory jury), do they have to be let go?? Or, if by chance they are never able to obtain a unanimous verdict (multiple trials, all with hung juries), would they have to be let go?? If so, wouldn't there be a public backlash against Holder and Obama, too?
Yeah, they may have to pull jurers from the Swat Valley, or, how long before the Ft. Hood shooter is well enough to sit in a jury box ?
Why would the right wing be so fearful of these people airing their "grievances?" Unless there is some truth to the grievances of course...nothing is more fearful to the right wing than the truth about America...
Yes, there would be a backlash by those who don't believe in the American justice system and prefer vigilante justice...you know, a lynch mob without a trial to impede them...
I believe in criminal cases, the defendant can forgo a jury trial for one decided by the judge if they feel that they can't get a fair verdict based on facts. The only reason a defendant would want a jury is for the doubt a trial may cast.
Why would a jury verdict necessarily cast more doubt than a judge? You think if a judge found any of the suspects innocent in this case, that the judge would not come under scrutiny? Face it, the right wants vengeance, not justice... They want someone to suffer for what happened on 9/11, not for our blind legal system of justice to trump the raw emotional reactions of people...
Ron Paul and others on the libertarian side of the right have said countless times that 9/11 and other instances of terrorism have been caused by US "grievances". With significant branches in their own party supporting these ideas I doubt the right is fearful of airing these grievances.
This is good. I want to see the conspiracy theorists deny full responsibility of the Islamists on 911 now!