Lawyer: 9/11 defendants want platform for views

[IrishBuckeye]

Source: AP

NEW YORK — 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."

...

Mohammed, Ali and the others will explain "their assessment of American foreign policy," Fenstermaker said.

"Their assessment is negative," he said.



Read more: http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hLzK033Jh4aJFhUF_nmu7SO9QY8gD9C4PIN80

---

The men will be on trial, not U.S. foreign policy. This is not the forum to explain "their assessment of American foreign policy" and hope any court and judge silences them if they attempt too change the focus of the trial(s).

[annabanana]

1. Horseshit "magic super-muslims" fearmongering...

Hardly worth responding to.

[EFerrari]

12. No kidding. Disgusting.

[CJCRANE]

2. I know their views. I've already seen the video.

They rerun it every election year.

[Turbineguy]

3. OK, fine. Let's hear it.

And move on.

I read Osama bin Laden's manifesto. Some good points, a few good ideas. His attacking the country did not convince me he was correct.

[Downwinder]

4. Lets see if they can prove that they were responsible and not BFEE. n/t

[still_one]

10. right, it wasn't AQ, it was all a right wing conspiracy, NOT. Plain bull /nt

[AngryAmish]

5. Silencing the defendants worked very well in the Chicago 7 trial

No one got their point!

[emulatorloo]

6. Sounds like the lawyer wants to stir up the Republican Noise Machine and the Noisy

Repub politicians. Seems like some kind of stategery going on here, but I am too lazy to tax my brain to figure it out.

[jwirr]

7. They can write books like everyone else. First they go on trial for

their actions.

[O is 44]

8. How many people did Cheney

pay off to do his fear bidding for him inside the government? I strongly believe we will continue to get leaks and stupid statements such as these in order to undermine this President. I hope he stands firm and ignores.

[bluestateguy]

9. Yeah, good luck with that

in front of a jury of New Yorkers who either knows someone affected by the attacks or saw the attacks on 9/11 personally.

[laborinvain]

11. This makes me want to know a lot more about Fenstermaker

"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."

Really? And this announcement helps their defence how?

[Andronex]

13. This will be a show trial.

They cannot get a fair trial in the US, after being tortured all those years they will say whatever they are told to say.

[boppers]

14. Let them have their say in court.

Americans believe in freedom of speech.

Period.

Not negotiable.

[LiberalLovinLug]

15. Exactly

I can't believe all the anti-free speechers here on DU.

Why can they not explain why they did it? Why in a court of law is the motive for the crime not important?

The fact is that the prosecution, (ie the Military Industrial Complex / Neo Con elite), who normally would be the party to bring up motive, is trying to squash any reference to it. They want that part to be irrelevant. That would be bizarre behavior for any other criminal prosecution lawyer. But in this case they want it to be hushed up or FOXified into the 9/11 suspects being 'cowards' or 'insane'.

So if the prosecution refuses to address motive, then I see no reason why the defense cannot bring it up. Of course there is no motive big enough to dismiss the killing of 3000 innocent people, not even the historic and ongoing systematic pillaging and mass murder in these men's homelands by the USA and its corporate elite. But for the love of God (and Allah) they deserve the right to explain their reasonings, no matter if you or I pre-judge those reasons as ludicrous.

I mean that is exactly what US citizens NEED to hear. They deserve to know WHY. The real reasons why, not some baloney about insane brainwashed islamofascists.

[Andronex]

18. "Why can they not explain why they did it?"

I would be more interested in how they did it, all the details please, there should be no convictions unless strong evidence is provided, a confession under torture is not valid under any circumstances.

[IrishBuckeye]

16. The court is not an open forum to rant and rave ones agenda

It's for a trial to be used to determined ones guilt or innocence and not be abused as a platform to air ones grievances.

[tomhayes]

17. This is true

>It's for a trial to be used to determined ones guilt or innocence and not be abused as a platform to air ones grievances.


They are there to defends themselves. Admitting to the crime and just explaining motive is not a defense at a criminal trials.And they can be silenced if they are not presenting a defense.

Motive is more appropriate during the sentencing phase.

But let them try it - our court system should be able to take it.

(Not sure how the system is going to handle the torture allegations.)

[LiberalLovinLug]

19. So motive is not important at a criminal trial?

If I were a family member of a victim of criminal assault or murder, I would not want to hear simply "defendant A used an knife in the ballroom". I would want to hear any kind of reason why it happened. Did they have a disagreement at work? Was there a sexual affair gone bad? Was the victim simply in the wrong place at the wrong time?

What if the motive was that your loved one, unbeknownst to you, was involved in some criminal enterprise where the the aggressor had friends or cohorts that might just target you next? Not only would I want the motive for the crime brought out for curiosity's sake, but also to protect my family.

So if the State prosecution in that case, has some vested interest in not producing motive because it may embarrass them, by proving that they had forewarning of the incident and in fact were engaged in criminal activity of their own which spurred on the defendants crime, as the victims family member, I for one would still demand that that motive be aired. It in no way would excuse the crime against my family member of course, but how can you argue that whatever motive exists should be hushed up in the court proceedings?

Baffling to me.

More terrorist attacks will occur on American soil, and each time Americans, even good DUers will shrug their shoulders and say "why does this keep happening to us?" And then the next day on DU they will advocate the gagging of any information about motive for the attack. And on it goes.