Republicans say the darndest things! Or rather, the DUMBEST things

[Drake Tungsten]

Yes, you are.

No, I'm not.

The DOJ obviously isn't going to allow potentially compromising evidence to publicly air in this trial.

[Ramo]

Is a justice system in which the defendant can only hurt himself by going to trial really a fair one?

It's as fair as the indefinite detention of people who get classified as enemy combatants.

[DinoDoc]

Yes, it is. The DOJ obviously isn't going to allow potentially compromising evidence to publicly air in this trial.

Have you never heard of the 1993 WTC bombing trials?

[Ramo]

I don't see anything obvious in the wiki.

[Drake Tungsten]

The Intelligence Mess
How the courts forced me to give sensitive information to Osama bin Laden.

... Under discovery rules that apply to American criminal proceedings, the government is required to provide to accused persons any information in its possession that can be deemed "material to the preparation of the defense" or that is even arguably exculpatory. The more broadly indictments are drawn (and terrorism indictments tend to be among the broadest), the greater the trove of revelation.

In addition, the government must disclose all prior statements made by witnesses it calls (and, often, witnesses it does not call).

This is a staggering quantum of information, certain to illuminate not only what the government knows about terrorist organizations but the intelligence agencies' methods and sources for obtaining that information. When, moreover, there is any dispute about whether a sensitive piece of information needs to be disclosed, the decision ends up being made by a judge on the basis of what a fair trial dictates, rather than by the executive branch on the basis of what public safety demands.

It is true that this mountain of intelligence is routinely surrendered along with appropriate judicial warnings: defendants may use it only in preparing for trial, and may not disseminate it for other purposes. Unfortunately, people who commit mass murder tend not to be terribly concerned about violating court orders (or, for that matter, about being hauled into court at all).

In 1995, just before trying the blind sheik (Omar Abdel Rahman) and eleven others, I duly complied with discovery law by writing a letter to the defense counsel listing 200 names of people who might be alleged as unindicted co-conspirators--i.e., people who were on the government's radar screen but whom there was insufficient evidence to charge. Six years later, my letter turned up as evidence in the trial of those who bombed our embassies in Africa. It seems that, within days of my having sent it, the letter had found its way to Sudan and was in the hands of bin Laden (who was on the list), having been fetched for him by an al-Qaeda operative who had gotten it from one of his associates.

Intelligence is dynamic. Over time, foreign terrorists and spies inevitably learn our tactics and adapt: consequently, we must refine and change those tactics. When we purposely tell them what we know--for what is blithely assumed to be the greater good of ensuring they get the same kind of fair trials as insider traders and tax cheats--we enable them not only to close the knowledge gap but to gain immense insight into our technological capacities, how our agencies think, and what our future moves are likely to be.

In considering the asserted "intelligence failures" of September 11 and beyond, it is worth bearing in mind this information bounty, which our government consciously decided to provide from 1993 through 2001 even as it was increasingly manifest that the enemy was growing more proficient, its attacks more deadly. ...

Mr. McCarthy, a former chief assistant U.S. attorney in New York, led the 1995 terrorism prosecution of Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman in connection with the first World Trade Center bombing.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/federation/feature/?id=110008966

[Ramo]

At Wednesday’s hearing, Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) cited Mukasey’s previous statements that he believed the Abdel Rahman trial had been bad for national security. The trial produced a public list of unindicted co-conspirators — including bin Laden — that may have tipped off the al-Qaeda leader he was wanted by the U.S. government, Mukasey has said.

Holder parried that prosecutors would have sought to keep the unindicted co-conspirator list classified and secret, if it had really compromised national security.

http://www.mainjustice.com/2009/11/18/holder-v-mukasey-giuliani/

Seems like a reasonable point. Why wasn't the list classified if it were compromising? From McCarthy's opinion piece, it doesn't appear that he even tried to keep it classified.

[Ramo]

Can't find transcript, but this is a summary:

Hatch: Mukasey, Blind Sheikh. Mukasey asserted that trials damaged Nat Security. Prosecution compelled to provide list of unindicted co-conspirators. Ramzi Youssef, testimony about a cell phone tipped off terrorists.

Hatch: What I would like to know is how do you intend to ensure that nat security information does not end up in hand of terrorists. Especially if KSM decides to defend themselves? Is CIPA really going to work if these detainees do or do not have counsel.

Holder: Has been suggested reveal info. Reality that information protection based on CIPA. If I might, there’s been misinformation wrt this co-conspirator list. Co-conspirator list not a classified document. Had there been reason to protect it, prosecutors could have. During embassy trial, cell phone, this allegation is simply wrong. Bin laden stopped using phone long before revealed at trial. Not used after October 9, 1998. Did not being until December 19, 1998. THere’s a factual problem.

http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2009/11/18/ag-holder-oversight-hearing/

[Ramo]

The relevant law:

Article 4 of CIPA:

The court, upon a sufficient showing, may authorize the United States to delete specified items of classified information from documents to be made available to the defendant through discovery under the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, to substitute a summary of the information for such classified documents, or to substitute a statement admitting relevant facts that the classified information would tend to prove. The court may permit the United States to make a request for such authorization in the form of a written statement to be inspected by the court alone. If the court enters an order granting relief following such an ex parte showing, the entire text of the statement of the United States shall be sealed and preserved in the records of the court to be made available to the appellate court in the event of an appeal.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18a/usc_sec_18a_02000004----000-.html

Why wasn't this done if the info were compromising?

[Drake Tungsten]

As I said...

Behind missed Gitmo deadline: No one wants jailees

SAN JUAN, Puerto Rico – President Barack Obama is now confirming what many have long suspected: He will miss his January deadline to close the Guantanamo prison — partly because he cannot persuade other nations to take the detainees.

Prisoners like Walid Abu Hijazi. The 29-year-old Palestinian is nearing his eighth year at Guantanamo even though the U.S. approved his release in February 2008. No one else has been willing to allow him, or dozens of others, into their territory.

This dilemma is one of the chief obstacles to closing the jail, according to lawyers and human rights groups who monitor U.S. detention policy. Most say Washington bears the main blame because it also refuses to accept prisoners on American soil.

"It's very difficult to persuade third countries to accept the political or security risks involved, especially when the United States has been unwilling to accept that risk itself," said Matthew Waxman, a professor at Columbia Law School.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091119/ap_on_re_la_am_ca/cb_guantanamo_missing_the_deadline

[The Emperor Fabulous]

:-/

[Drake Tungsten]

Skelton not happy with 9/11 trials
By Eric Zimmermann - 11/20/09 04:50 PM ET

The chairman of the House Armed Services Committee expressed opposition today to Attorney General Eric Holder's decision to give civilian trials to the 9/11 plotters.

Rep. Ike Skelton (D-Mo.) penned a letter to Holder and Defense Secretary Robert Gates suggesting military trials would be a more appropriate venue for the accused terrorists.

"As a former prosecutor, I am not yet convinced that the right decision was made in these cases, nor that the presumption in favor of federal criminal trials over military tribunals for these detainees should continue," Skelton wrote.

The Missouri Democrat argued that legislation passed in 2007 brought military commissions up to constitutional standards. He also invited Holder and Gates to testify about the administration's decision before the Armed Services Committee.

"The decision to terminate the prosecution of these self-confessed terrorists in military commissions, transfer them to the United States, and bring them into a federal courthouse for trial raises many serious questions which I would like you both to address in a full committee briefing on December 3, 2009, at 1:00 PM," Skelton requested.

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/68929-dem-chairman-not-happy-with-911-trials

[Drake Tungsten]

This just keeps getting better and better...

Security for 9/11 Trials in NYC Will Cost More Than $400M
Cost of Trying 9/11 Terrorists Could Go as High as $600 Million

New York City projects it will cost more than $400 million to provide security if the pre-trial preparation and trial of the suspects in the Sept. 11 terror attacks takes two years, which insiders say is virtually certain, according to New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg.

It will cost another $206 million annually if the trial runs beyond two years, which some fear is possible, the mayor's office estimates.

In a letter to the director of the federal Office of Management and Budget supporting Sen. Charles Schumer's proposal for federal reimbursement, Bloomberg projected a first year security price tag of $216 million and an ongoing annual cost of $206 million. "The City of New York's financial resources are in short supply," Bloomberg wrote. "Thus securing the trial will require us to pull existing personnel from crime prevention resources from around the city." The civilian trial of the Sept. 11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and five other suspects in the attacks that killed nearly 2,750 civilians will take place in a Manhattan federal courthouse just blocks from where the towers stood. ...

In his letter supporting Schumer's proposal, Bloomberg noted that the cost of securing the 2004 Republican National Convention exceeded $50 million. That took place from Aug. 30 through Sept 2, less than one week. Security is expected to include the closure of many streets around the court house, a very heavy uniformed police presence, snipers, heavy weapons teams, undercover police officers and a massive federal and local intelligence and counter terror operation.

http://abcnews.go.com/WN/york-estimates-cost-terror-trials-400-million/story?id=9496406

[DaShi]

Now that's a stimulis package!

[Asher]

Stimulus

[KrazyHorse]

Funny, I was expecting:

Packages