Terrorist lawyer

[jarhead]

NEW YORK (AP) - 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 deadliest terrorist attack in the U.S. will face a civilian federal trial just blocks from the site of the destroyed World Trade Center.

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.

Fenstermaker met with Ali last week at the U.S. prison at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba. He has not spoken with the others but said the men have discussed the trial among themselves.

Fenstermaker was first quoted in The New York Times in Sunday's editions.

Critics of Attorney General Eric Holder's decision to try the men in a New York City civilian courthouse have warned that the trial would provide the defendants with a propaganda platform.

Dean Boyd, a spokesman for the Department of Justice, said Sunday that while the men may attempt to use the trial to express their views, "we have full confidence in the ability of the courts and in particular the federal judge who may preside over the trial to ensure that the proceeding is conducted appropriately and with minimal disruption, as federal courts have done in the past."

Last week, the Senate Judiciary Committee questioned Holder for hours about his decision to send the five 9/11 suspects to New York for trial.

Critics of Holder's decision - mostly Republicans - argued the trial will give Mohammed and his co-defendants a world stage to spout hateful rhetoric. Holder said such concerns are misplaced, and any pronouncements by the suspects would only make them look worse.

"I have every confidence that the nation and the world will see him for the coward that he is," Holder told the committee. "I'm not scared of what Khalid Sheikh Mohammed has to say at trial - and no one else needs to be, either."

The attorney general said he does not believe holding the trial in New York - at a federal courthouse that has seen a number of high-profile terrorism trials in recent decades - will increase the risk of terror attacks there.

[Terroreyes]

Should have taken the guilty plea they offered previously and we wouldn't be having this discussion. Shame on all in power for the last 9 years!

[guest]

I just don't see the problem with having the trial in NY.

Let these guys face the people that lost loved ones because of their actions.

Let the world see just how they are filled with HATE, and how their twisted logic has no other purpose, other than to HATE.

What i don't like is these trials becoming political by our reps. NO need for that.

PS, bet i could complain about our government more than they could......but killing thousands of people that have nothing to do with it will make no difference and change nothing.
That is what this trial can show, for there is no reason for what they did, and they cannot defend it or make it seem appropriate.

[jarhead]

1st It was an act of war, so it needs to be handled in a military court.

2nd Those guys don't care about the faimlies they might face.

3rd It will cost the state of New York $100 million to hold the trial there.

4th This lawyer Scott Finstenmaker wants to have these guys aquited. Any American that would defend these terrorists are less than human in my book and deserve the same punishment as the terrorists.

5th What about the information that will be released that will put our intellegence community in harms way.

I agree it should have been handled a long time ago. Like right after they said they did it. And I mean right after.

[Semper- Fi]

There are a couple of points you missed, 1) the person who is defending these people will recieve his pay out of the American Tax Payers pockets. 2)He will advance his own political career out of this, and continue to be a drain on the American Tax Payer.

[caffeineforall]

First it cannot be an act of war as they are not a country, just nut job people. Thats like saying Timothy McVeigh committed an act of war and lets go attack the Michigan Militia because Terry Nichols helped him out.

Second, you're right, they wont care, but the families will.

Third, it will cost whoever holds the trial a lot of money. Such is the nature of the game.

Fourth, its a defense lawyers job to defend them. He may be trying to make a name for him self, or what ever the case may be. However this is still America, and the Constitution and Bill of Rights garuntees representation. If you are against this for a terrorist, but not your self, leave America.

Fifth, two words, National Security. Thats all that has to be said and those records will be sealed off. No mention will leave the courts. The intelligence community, contrary to belief are a swift and agile bunch. They could handle (albeit not like it) this whole trial being public.

And lastly, I am serving in the U.S. Army, so before you try to say I'm un-American or anything, I served, and still am serving. If you really are/were a marine.

[JLDII]

I say give them a nice fair trial, and as soon as they find them guilty, walk them out side and have a good old fashion public hanging on the courthouse steps. They can string that lawyer up also for all I care.

[guest]

they are not garenteed anything under the bill of rights the bill of rights are for americans not forein terrists.
it makes me sick that there are people that think these guys have rights. they should of been interrogated for their info then punished to make an example of.

[joepa]

I agree, we fought for our rights and everything this country stands for! A terrorist comes to this country, kills our people for his and for his country's beliefs and then wants to be protected by the U.S. Constitution??? The judges and the attorneys in this country defy everything to get the almighty buck. Throw out common sense, throw out the fact that what was done 0n 9/11 was an act of war ON OUR SOIL!

[caffeineforall]

So you would rather be as barbaric and insulent as them?

The whole premise of the country is we are better than that.

I'll give them all the aforementioned rights of a us citizen, because I am better than they are.

[GiddyGills]

First it cannot be an act of war as they are not a country, just nut job people. Thats like saying Timothy McVeigh committed an act of war and lets go attack the Michigan Militia because Terry Nichols helped him out.

Second, you're right, they wont care, but the families will.

Third, it will cost whoever holds the trial a lot of money. Such is the nature of the game.

Fourth, its a defense lawyers job to defend them. He may be trying to make a name for him self, or what ever the case may be. However this is still America, and the Constitution and Bill of Rights garuntees representation. If you are against this for a terrorist, but not your self, leave America.







Fifth, two words, National Security. Thats all that has to be said and those records will be sealed off. No mention will leave the courts. The intelligence community, contrary to belief are a swift and agile bunch. They could handle (albeit not like it) this whole trial being public.

And lastly, I am serving in the U.S. Army, so before you try to say I'm un-American or anything, I served, and still am serving. If you really are/were a marine.


You skipped over three very important points

1) They are not U.S. citizens and are not afforded protection under the constitution
2) They were not caught in the U.S., they were caught on a battle field
3) They declared war on the U.S.

You cannot over look those.

[T Mac]

So you would rather be barbaric and insult them?
The whole premise of the country is we are better than that.
I'll give them all the aforementioned rights of a us citizen, because I am better than they are.


That is basically what we are hearing from the Eric Holder fans.

It sounds rightous, even arrogant. ........But it doesn't wash.

Obama, Holder and others have stated publicly, on television, that these guys won't be found innocent.
-The trial is a sham, in other words.
How does that demonstrate that we are better? ?
-It doesn't.
How is a sham trial not insulting?
-It is insulting.

Why waste all the money, and pour salt on this wound ...and divide this country even further?
-It is all politics.

[jarhead]

First it cannot be an act of war as they are not a country, just nut job people. Thats like saying Timothy McVeigh committed an act of war and lets go attack the Michigan Militia because Terry Nichols helped him out.

Second, you're right, they wont care, but the families will.

Third, it will cost whoever holds the trial a lot of money. Such is the nature of the game.

Fourth, its a defense lawyers job to defend them. He may be trying to make a name for him self, or what ever the case may be. However this is still America, and the Constitution and Bill of Rights garuntees representation. If you are against this for a terrorist, but not your self, leave America.

Fifth, two words, National Security. Thats all that has to be said and those records will be sealed off. No mention will leave the courts. The intelligence community, contrary to belief are a swift and agile bunch. They could handle (albeit not like it) this whole trial being public.

And lastly, I am serving in the U.S. Army, so before you try to say I'm un-American or anything, I served, and still am serving. If you really are/were a marine.

1 Believe me my friend this was an act or war. Being in the army you should know that.
2 The faimlies don't want the big court production.
3 This isn't a game and is no time to waste $100 million
4 " Fourth, its a defense lawyers job to defend them. He may be trying to make a name for him self, or what ever the case may be. However this is still America, and the Constitution and Bill of Rights garuntees representation. If you are against this for a terrorist, but not your self, leave America" SHAME ON YOU
5 Nation Security. Thats the part of the reason it shouldn't be in a civilian court
6 Thank You for your service to this great nation.

[karpbuster]

Sounds political to me. It is a sad, crappy decision. Just based on the outcome for those who lost their family members in the Twin Towers. Justice is receiving what you deserve for your crime. These criminals do not deserve the right to drag their thoughts, opinions and agenda on to the American court.

I don't recall a huge American outrage over the terrorists not getting a trial on American soil? Where does this junk come from?

[PAL]

This belongs in a military court end of story.

The only reason they are going to NY is for political reasons (another chance to blame George Bush) Of course the current admin thinks they are criminals not enemies, Clinton followed the same philosophy and you know what that got us.

Heck it only took a year to figure out what to do with them, makes you wonder why our foreign policy is the laughing stock of the world and pretty much thought of as a paper tiger.

[capnlee]

So the US government is supposed to give these prisoners the assumption of innocence until they are proven guilty, but this president and his administration are stating they WILL be found guilty?

They deserve no Constitutional protections. Most of these people were captured on the battlefield while not wearing a uniform. They don't even deserve Geneva Convention protections.

[guest]

Obama, Holder and others have stated publicly, on television, that these guys won't be found innocent.
-The trial is a sham, in other words.
How does that demonstrate that we are better? ?
-It doesn't.
How is a sham trial not insulting?
-It is insulting.<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

Should they say they might find them innocent?

Jar head, In the military, did you execute prisoners of war?

Nothing arrogant about justice, there needs to be a trial!!!!!!
Or maybe, why should any one have a lawyer represent them in a court of law? citizen or not? Our country believes in basic human rights. I'm sorry that many don't!!!

I wonder if a different party were in office if the same things were to be said??

How long have they been held? These guys spilled the beans a long time ago!!

[bob oh]

I forever grateful that judicial decisions are not made on WC :-)

[T Mac]

I forever grateful that judicial decisions are not made on WC :-)

LOL!



Roger that, Bob

[karpbuster]

I forever grateful that judicial decisions are not made on WC :-)
I am thankful for that. LOL Happy Thanksgiving.

[JLDII]

So you would rather be as barbaric and insulent as them?


Actually, YES!!

This country is never going to win this so called "war" against terrorists if we "play" by all the civilized rules of war fare.

The only way we will defeat these extremists is is we confront them by their own "rules" and "principles", which there are none. They are laughing at us endlessly because we feel so self rightious in our beliefs of being the better people. That is their greatest weapon against us in this so called war. It is our greatest weakness in this battle.

If we were to show them the same merciless attitude as they have shown to us, they will back off. If we strike back without warning everytime they strike us, they will live with the same fear they have us living in.

Think of it this way, they are nothing but a little dog yacking and nipping at our ankles. Kick that dog a good one and he will cower away and never challange us again.

It's darn well time this political correctness crapola got thrown out the window and a serious statement be made for all the world to see.