Indictment against Zacarias Moussaoui for 9/11 attacks.

Post #21,053 by Another Scott 12/11/01 4:58:39 PM Reply	Indictment against Zacarias Moussaoui for 9/11 attacks. [link\|http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/wire/sns-ap-attacks-indictment-text1211dec11.story?coll=sns%2Dap%2Dnationworld%2Dheadlines\|Here]. The URL will change. The indictment's too long to post. But there's lots of detailed charges against him and bin Laden and al Qaeda. Lots of detail about timelines, money transfers, etc. The Charge 16. From in or about 1989 until the date of the filing of this Indictment, in the Eastern District of Virginia, the Southern District of New York, and elsewhere, the defendant, ZACARIAS MOUSSAOUI, a/k/a "Shaqil," a/k/a "Abu Khalid al Sahrawi," with other members and associates of al Qaeda and others known and unknown to the Grand Jury, unlawfully, wilfully and knowingly combined, conspired, confederated and agreed to kill and maim persons within the United States, and to create a substantial risk of serious bodily injury to other persons by destroying and damaging structures, conveyances, and other real and personal property within the United States, in violation of the laws of States and the United States, in circumstances involving conduct transcending national boundaries, and in which facilities of interstate and foreign commerce were used in furtherance of the offense, the offense obstructed, delayed, and affected interstate and foreign commerce, the victim was the United States Government, members of the uniformed services, and officials, officers, employees, and agents of the governmental branches, departments, and agencies of the United States, and the structures, conveyances, and other real and personal property were, in whole or in part, owned, possessed, and leased to the United States and its departments and agencies, resulting in the deaths of thousands of persons on September 11, 2001. The DoJ is given as the source. Perhaps the full text is or will soon be available there. Cheers, Scott.
Post #21,061 by Ashton 12/11/01 5:15:41 PM Reply	Question: since he's not a US citizen, how is it that we are regressing to the times when the US was a Constitution-based Empire.. and allowing this anachronistic trial thing? This smacks of a most unPatriotic Act! Who is responsible for this miscarriage of Justice-lite? Impeachment or at very least, death to.. these renegades! A Concerned Immune Hah! Citizen Wants to Know Unity \ufffdber Alles in die Welt!
Post #21,070 by Another Scott 12/11/01 5:27:58 PM Reply	I think you know the answer. As I understand Bush's "tribunal" edict, the US has the option of using military tribunals. It's not required. And since this fellow was aprehended by civilian authorities, not the military, it makes sense for him to be tried under civilian rules (unless good cause can be shown otherwise). My $0.02. Cheers, Scott.
Post #21,073 by bepatient 12/11/01 5:37:28 PM Reply	Oh DEAR.... ...how DARE Ashcroft and his ilk to actually not satisfy his fear-mongering critics and actually try this man in a Court. "But Virginia...that man is EVEEEEL...just read Salon!!! They'll tell you...and even write cartoons for those who can't mouth the words." You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #21,085 by Ashton 12/11/01 6:49:21 PM Reply	Equally valid deduction from all that no-data: Ashcroft might even have noticed* the sheer number of CommiePinko Subversive Hand-wringers infesting his Fiefdom.. and settled for the less certain mode. (He can deal with Them later on.) * well, it's possible he takes time out from rewriting laws n'stuff to look around (?) [as if we had the [oil] foggiest.. what goes on inside him and [oil] his] Ashton Evil is warm and fuzzy, like a Wag-Ed ad.. and a Foulwell sermon. Quit knockin it.. It's a Vital part of Our Economy !
Post #21,101 by mmoffitt 12/11/01 9:20:52 PM Reply	Xactly. Perhaps its true: if you hit, even a stump, over the head with a board long enough, it'll eventually realize it's being hit over the head with a board.
Post #21,093 by Brandioch 12/11/01 7:38:51 PM Reply	So, let's see if I understand this.... #1. We need these tribunals to try non-citizens for terrorist activities. #2. We have a captured non-citizen who is charged with terrorist activities. #3. Therefore he will be tried in an open civilian court. Yes, I completely understand your position now. Of course we need tribunals (secret) to try these people. PS: Prisoners taken during war are POW's. Treatment of POW's has been codified already.
Post #21,112 by bepatient 12/11/01 10:09:34 PM Reply	Whose position are you referring to... ...because it wouldn't be mine...even though you are responding to me. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #21,195 by Brandioch 12/12/01 2:57:21 PM Reply	Curious. So, you're saying that you do not support the tribunals?
Post #21,221 by bepatient 12/12/01 4:32:17 PM Reply	I have nothing against the tribunals... ...its the secret part I have a problem with...and have since the beginning. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #21,096 by Ric Locke 12/11/01 8:09:31 PM Reply	Too much work Disclaimer: I do not like Ashcroft, OK? Somebody posted that the Missourians were happy to elect a dead man instead of him. They were wise. That being said, this "sends a message" [yechh] in several ways. The Executive Order says that such people can be tried by military tribunal, not that they must be. The reason for a military tribunal is twofold: first, it avoids the Simpson Circus Effect; second, the likelihood that a "chain of evidence" can be maintained in military and quasimilitary operations is nil. So what this trial says is that if they do have what they believe is sufficient admissible evidence, they'll go for the trial rather than the tribunal; the circus is manageable. (And I do mean "admissible" under the rather tortuous and arcane rules of evidence currently in force.) Why? Well, there are a lot of people who kneejerk against the tribunals, and a lot more who are made uncomfortable by them -- in which latter group I include myself, by the way. The more convictions they can get by standard trials, the more credible the whole effort becomes. Once again, don't fall into the trap of believing that because someone doesn't agree with your Personal View of the Universe as handed down by the Prophet Noam they're necessarily stupid, or don't pay attention to what's going on. Like I said, I can think of several things I'd like to do with Ashcroft, none of them very enjoyable for the man himself; but I find this development heartening, on the whole. Regards, Ric
Post #21,104 by boxley 12/11/01 9:30:13 PM Reply	please sharpen yer stick before poking since he is in the "Custody" of an allied govt who has suggested that tribunals are unfair except in the Dryfuss case it was a question of civil or non. thanx, bill tshirt front "born to die before I get old" thshirt back "fscked another one didnja?"
Post #21,115 by Ashton 12/11/01 10:51:25 PM Reply	I expect that's the compelling reason too. Which leaves the question of his sensitivity? to the carping - moot. From what I saw of Ashcroft replying to concerns - he sees none. Those who oppose him are UnMurican. Pure & simple. (Have to ask the MO folk what he was doing to them, to earn his local opprobrium.?. couldnt'a been the ostentatious 'voluntary' prayer meetings as in DC, so it must have been something Else.) This may change - if the UK folk opposing Ashcroft-style tampering, next find selves cowed into silence. I believe that's an ongoing Tony B. vs Them thing. So UK might.. go along with the secret tribunals. Might. It I were bin-L's droids.. I'd see it like end of of WW-II: Germans would do Anything to surrender to US and not USSR. Er.. now we be USSR? (Hmm is it unWahabbi to allow self to be captured?) A.

Welcome to IWETHEY!