In the biggest trial for the age of terrorism, the professed 9/11 mastermind and four alleged henchmen will be hauled before a civilian court on American soil, barely a thousand yards from the site of the World Trade Center's twin towers they are accused of destroying.
It was recently announced by Attorney General Eric Holder the decision to bring Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and four others detained at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to trial at a lower Manhattan courthouse. This as you can imagine this is an extremely risky move because trying the men in civil court will bar evidence obtained under duress and complicate a case where anything short of slam-dunk convictions will empower President Barack Obama's critics and make a sham of our legal system.
And that my friends is where the good old exclusionary rule comes in. Any evidence or testimony obtained as a result of coercion or torture among other things is excluded and cannot be used against the defendants in court. (this is a very short definition of same). So this invites the question of whether the exclusionary rule apply in the testimony obtained in this case. There is no doubt there was water boarding and other torture methods used to obtain said testimony. However, most of this testimony was elicited in Guantanamo Bay and very unclear at times as to whether these terrorists were going to be brought to trial eventually.
Lawyers for the accused will almost certainly try to have charges thrown out based on the rough treatment of the detainees at the hands of U.S. interrogators, including the repeated water boarding, or simulated drowning, of Mohammed. The question has been raised as to whether the government can make its case without using coerced confessions.
I can go on and on as to different points pertaining to this issue, but what it really comes down to is this; if these people are brought to trial here, as horrible and gruesome 9/11 was, should these people have the same rights afforded to them that any other American enjoys. In other words, should they have a fair and balanced trial and be innocent until proven guilty? Or does the legal system also have a moral obligation to severely punish these men that caused so much death, horror and despair to an entire country.
American Law. Its complicated!
No matter where you stand on this issue, I recently read a compelling statement by a family member of a 9/11 victim who thought that these terrorist don't merit any defense, she went on to say that "the prospect of these barbarians being turned into victims by their defense attorneys is sickening, disrespectful and disgusting."
What do you think? Should they have their day in court?
It was recently announced by Attorney General Eric Holder the decision to bring Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and four others detained at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to trial at a lower Manhattan courthouse. This as you can imagine this is an extremely risky move because trying the men in civil court will bar evidence obtained under duress and complicate a case where anything short of slam-dunk convictions will empower President Barack Obama's critics and make a sham of our legal system.
And that my friends is where the good old exclusionary rule comes in. Any evidence or testimony obtained as a result of coercion or torture among other things is excluded and cannot be used against the defendants in court. (this is a very short definition of same). So this invites the question of whether the exclusionary rule apply in the testimony obtained in this case. There is no doubt there was water boarding and other torture methods used to obtain said testimony. However, most of this testimony was elicited in Guantanamo Bay and very unclear at times as to whether these terrorists were going to be brought to trial eventually.
Lawyers for the accused will almost certainly try to have charges thrown out based on the rough treatment of the detainees at the hands of U.S. interrogators, including the repeated water boarding, or simulated drowning, of Mohammed. The question has been raised as to whether the government can make its case without using coerced confessions.
I can go on and on as to different points pertaining to this issue, but what it really comes down to is this; if these people are brought to trial here, as horrible and gruesome 9/11 was, should these people have the same rights afforded to them that any other American enjoys. In other words, should they have a fair and balanced trial and be innocent until proven guilty? Or does the legal system also have a moral obligation to severely punish these men that caused so much death, horror and despair to an entire country.
American Law. Its complicated!
No matter where you stand on this issue, I recently read a compelling statement by a family member of a 9/11 victim who thought that these terrorist don't merit any defense, she went on to say that "the prospect of these barbarians being turned into victims by their defense attorneys is sickening, disrespectful and disgusting."
What do you think? Should they have their day in court?
