Breaking: Lawyer: al-Aziz Ali to mount an affirmative defense, agree to facts argue "justification"

[grantcart]

Breaking on CNN now is an article that states that atleast one of the high profile planners of the 9/11 attacks is going to plead not guilty by means of a justification defense. Ali is the maternal nephew of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and cousin of Ramzi Yousef and was frequently in KSM presence and was involved in numerous financial transactions with 9/11 bombers and tried to go to the US a few weeks before the 9/11 attacks. His uncle said that Ali also wanted to plead guilty in 12/08 as part of a common guilty plea of all 5 defendents.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ammar_al-Baluchi

This would mean that he (and maybe others) would accept the basic facts of the case (and make questions about tainted evidence moot) and argue that the attacks were justified as a response to an ongoing armed conflict.

This would make prosecution much simpler and would be virtually a "guilty plea" but would allow the defendents to accept the facts of their involvement but attempt to make a larger, ideological statement.

Lawyer: 9/11 suspect to plead not guilty, argue attacks justified

http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/11/23/terror.suspect/index.html



Washington (CNN) -- At least one -- and possibly all five -- of the detainees with alleged ties to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, will plead not guilty in a "justification defense," arguing the attacks were responses to American foreign policy, according to a lawyer who met with one of the defendants.

Attorney Scott Fenstermaker said he met with defendant Ali Abd al-Aziz Ali at the Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, detention facility last week, and that when Ali and four other men face trial in New York, they likely will plead not guilty and then argue that the attacks were justified.

Fenstermaker, who is representing Ali in a procedural matter at Guantanamo, said he expects Ali will acknowledge a role in the 9/11 attacks, and believes Ali's goal in pleading not guilty would not necessarily be acquittal. The attorney said Monday that during his meeting with Ali at Guantanamo, "he said, 'Here's my goal,' and he wrote down the word 'death' on a piece of paper."

Ali, also known as Ammar al-Baluchi, is described in the 9/11 Commission Report as having helped the hijackers with money transfers, plane tickets, hotel reservations and guidance.

[paulsby]

1. a goal of "death"... not surprising

"We love death. The US loves life. That is the difference between us two.” - osama bin laden

[Ozymanithrax]

2. Let them have their day in court.

We have nothing to fear accept that George W. Bush so tainted the evidence with torture and other felonies that they might get off.

But they deserve their day in court.

Claiming their attack was justified will not endear themselves to a jury.

[Arkana]

3. Yeah, this'll help their case with a New York jury.

Stick these fuckers in solitary for the rest of their lives. Deny them the 72 virgins and eternal paradise--that's the worst punishment we could give them.

[Cha]

5. Yes, sentencing them to life in solitary

confinement would be the absolute worst punishment.

[The Magistrate]

4. He Can Say That Now, Sir, But It is Unlikely The Judge Will Allow It In Court

[grantcart]

6. Their attorneys have been looking at it for 11 months so they must have some

confidence thta it will succeed.

There are facts that support it, namely the bombings of the embassies in Africa, etc. Obviously a judge would limit the ideological portions to the facts that were related to 9/11.

The basic premise that it was a part of ongoing hostilities has a basis in fact.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7770856.stm

[The Magistrate]

8. States, My Friend, Do Not Engage In Hostilities With Private Individuals, On-Going Or Otherwise

A private individual employing violence against a state is always a criminal under its laws. A defense amounting to a plea that he was 'at war with' the United States could not be accepted by a Federal judge. People have attempted a 'necessity defense' in some peace demonstrations, involving symbolic vandalisms on military bases, and it escapes immediate recollection whether this was allowed at trial, but even if it was, it is highly unlikely that cases of basically non-violent civil disobedience by citizens would suffice as precedent in cases involving wholesale murder.

There does not seem much indication in the account you have cited that this has been worked out in consultation with the lawyer quoted, or any lawyers at all, for that matter. The gentleman quoted is not even named certainly as this man's counsel at the up-coming trial. There is no reason to think this line is the product of good legal advice, settled on as the course giving the best chance of success. Indeed, it gives no chance of success at all, even if allowed by a judge, at least if success is defined as acquittal, or a sentence of less than death: a jury will certainly convict if this line is actually pursued in court.

[Blue_In_AK]

7. There is no harm in hearing his "defense,"

as far as I can see. He's basically pleading guilty here, but saving face among his "peeps." If he's convicted, the appropriate punishment would be life in prison, denying him the martyrdom that he apparently seeks.

In some respects I don't think these guys are any more guilty of terrorism than George Bush and his war machine. The death penalty should not apply to one and not the other.

[orwell]

9. Good luck with that...

...let me know how it works out.

[boppers]

10. I, for one, would like to hear that defense.

So, I suspect, would many other US citizens who bought into simple minded "they hate our freedoms" lies pumped out by the * administration.

[leftynyc]

11. What could he possibly say

that would justify mass murder? It doesn't matter what he says. An affirmative defense is good for the prosecutors - just let the religious freak try to justify. There are no camera allowed in federal court and while they may think words on a page will be persuasive as an argument, it's not like a video can be posted on you tube so he can make his case to the general population or to his cohorts. They're making the proscution much easier now.

[boppers]

12. Systemic mass murder can justify a retaliation of mass murder.

I wouldn't be surprised if that was the argument made.

[rasputin1952]

14. Then why didn't they fly planes into the Kremlin back in the 80's?

The WTC was chosen because of world banking ties; the other targets were chosen for military/political ties.

[boppers]

17. I have no doubt that planes would have been flown into the Kremlin in the 80's...

...if they had thought of it then.

However, you seem to have different ideas ("world banking"?), could you elaborate further?

[rasputin1952]

20. Don't get a-flutter, the WTC was one of the major banking centers of the world...

I'm not into the conspiracy things that seem top runrampant around the net...;)

[boppers]

23. I'm not a-flutter...

I was just wondering about your chain of thought.

Seeing as the targets (AFAIK) had code names, I was wondering where your chain of thought came from, and led to.

I'm pretty sure the "Bilderburg and Trilateral commission" wasn't the target.

[rasputin1952]

24. No...sorry, I get to see so many CT's, I get a little jaded after...

a bit.

bin-Laden had made it plain that he was attacking the WTC because it was a hub of world banking and finance, (this was month's before the actual attacks were carried out).

Clinton had tried to take bin-Laden out w/a cruise missile, but the hew and cry from the RW made it untenable for him to try another strike. Clinton knew on bin-Laden's plans, and the R's in congress kept up w/the "wag the dog" crap and the meme of the "impeachment" and trial/Lewinsky & USS Cole situations, that Clinton's hands were tied.

When bush was briefed, he just blew it off, (the bin-Laden determined to attack the US memo), and disaster struck. The R's in congress as well as the bush administration were complicit in the attacks by shear negligence on their part after they had been briefed and warned.

Acts of terror are generally well planned out, that's the best way to get the most fear from the incident(s). bin-Laden had been planning this for years, and the final plans were in the last year before the event. bush could have had bin-Laden, but he failed in the attempt, just as everything he attempted failed miserably.

:hi:

[cali]

15. no, actually it can't. had they bombed a military base or installation

there might be some symmetry, but no, purposefully attacking and killing civilians is not justifiable. you have to completely morally broken to think so.

[boppers]

19. In a highly militarized society, what is a civilian?

The argument could be summarized thusly: Aside from the Quakers and Amish, where does one find a group, a building, a gathering of people, in the US, that isn't supporting the military, either actively or passively?

Ward Churchill went so far as to use the label "Little Eichmans", as a way of trying to make the argument.

I don't really agree with the perspective, but I can identify, and understand, the argument, at least.

[leftynyc]

16. Systemic mass murder?

Where? Done by whom?

[boppers]

21. Which one?

Iraq? Iran? Israel? Lebanon?

Take your pick.

[leftynyc]

28. Ah - I see

You like hyperbole. Iran?

[NYC Liberal]

18. So then since they killed 3,000 civilians

We would be justified in killing thousands of civilians in response?

[boppers]

22. We've justified killing 500,000 in Iraq since Clinton.

I don't think that's justified.


edit: missing word

[NYC Liberal]

25. Right, and back and forth it goes..

[boppers]

26. I believe that's their argument. Maybe not the exact one, but the general one.

Maybe some will see the madness in it.

[rasputin1952]

13. That will esnsure conviction as near as I can figure...

I am not a lawyer, nor do I play one on TV or DU; but I think a "justification" defense is about as worthless as a sparrow fart in a tornado. The only way I can see any leniency is if the defendants claim insanity, and even that would be iffy at best. We might think the act was insane, but the perpetrators have not shown any classic signs of insanity.

These individuals want to be martyrs, if convicted, they should be behind bars for life, not executed to ensure their martyrdom in some circles. Life in prison would be a stigma they could never recover from in their mind and the minds of their compatriots.

If this is the "defense", a short trial is in the offering.

[jberryhill]

27. Sounds like a loser

They can try, but it's unlikely that defense is going to be allowed.

There is a big difference between arguing justification, and simply seeking vengeance remote in time, place, and persons from the harm against which deadly force is used.

There is no "revenge" defense.