Under our system of justice, whether a crime was committed is for the jury to decide. The fact that it is not being permitted to do so in the 9/11 case is why the 9/11 New York trial will merely be a political show trial for the purpose of affording the government the opportunity to continue its propaganda war against the American public. After all, assume you are a juror in a trial where the prosecutor's ultimate bosses have already announced, before the defendants in the trial have even been charged, that, (1) they will be found guilty and (2) if the jury screws up and doesn't find them guilty, that the executive branch will override the jury's decision and sentence the defendants to life imprisonment anyway. What would you, as a juror, think about that? I'd think I was merely wasting my time sitting on jury duty, that the jury should be excused from the charade, and that the defendants should be summarily convicted without wasting the time and energy to go through the trial process.
TP: For the benefit of readers, Mr Fenstermaker has already stated why he would refuse to represent Mr. Baluchi or any other detainee at the 9/11 trials. When I asked him why he would refuse, he said; "Because I think the international community may one day open up a war crimes investigation into the war on terror, and a lot of these judges and lawyers may be prosecuted themselves."
The 9/11 trials will be a show, precisely because the detainees will be representing themselves, or they will be defended by government stooges. However, since they plan to plead not guilty, the government must at least go through the motions of presenting evidence and convincing a jury. Therefore the evidence is relevant.
So, let's discuss the evidence, or lack thereof. Can you tell us how you came by these "discovery materials for the 9/11 case? Why is this information controversial? Who gave this information to you? You also mentioned that whoever gave you this information feared that it might be destroyed. Can you tell us why the person who gave you this thought that?
SF: I will not tell you how I came about these discovery materials, other than to tell you that the person who gave them to me loves America deeply and respects the values for which it purports to stand. I have not reviewed the materials, so it may be premature for me to describe them as controversial. However, as they have to do with 9/11, they are likely controversial, or at the very least newsworthy.
The reason that the materials may be destroyed is because they were meant for the military commissions, which were designed to enable the government to hide information, including the materials I now have in my possession. As these detainees apparently no longer face trial by military commission, it may be more difficult for the government to hide this information, other than by way of destroying it.
TP: Can you give us details about any evidence the government has against these detainees?
SF: N o. As I mentioned earlier, I haven't reviewed any of this evidence, nor do I have any plans to do so. I will not be representing Mr. al-Baluchi in his New York trial, so there is no need for me to review this evidence. While I do represent Mr. al-Baluchi in his habeas case in Washington, that case is essentially meaningless. Even if we were to secure a writ of habeas corpus, the government would never release him and would, if necessary, execute him before doing so. Hence, the evidence is of no moment to me in my capacity as Mr. al-Baluchi's counsel.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
1
1
1
