Lawyer: 9/11 Suspects to Plead Not Guilty

(AP)  The five men facing trial in the Sept. 11 attacks will plead not guilty so that they can air their criticisms of U.S. foreign policy, the lawyer for one of the defendants said Sunday.

Scott Fenstermaker, the lawyer for accused terrorist Ali Abd al-Aziz Ali, said the men would not deny their role in the 2001 attacks but "would explain what happened and why they did it."

The U.S. Justice Department announced earlier this month that Ali and four other men accused of murdering nearly 3,000 people in the deadliest terrorist attack in the U.S. will face a civilian federal trial just blocks from the site of the destroyed World Trade Center.

Ali, also known as Ammar al-Baluchi, is a nephew of professed 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.

Mohammed, Ali and the others will explain "their assessment of American foreign policy," Fenstermaker said.

"Their assessment is negative," he said.

Fenstermaker met with Ali last week at the U.S. prison at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba. He has not spoken with the others but said the men have discussed the trial among themselves.

Fenstermaker was first quoted in The New York Times in Sunday's editions.

Critics of Attorney General Eric Holder's decision to try the men in a New York City civilian courthouse have warned that the trial would provide the defendants with a propaganda platform.

Dean Boyd, a spokesman for the Department of Justice, said Sunday that while the men may attempt to use the trial to express their views, "we have full confidence in the ability of the courts and in particular the federal judge who may preside over the trial to ensure that the proceeding is conducted appropriately and with minimal disruption, as federal courts have done in the past."

Last week, the Senate Judiciary Committee questioned Holder for hours about his decision to send the five 9/11 suspects to New York for trial.

Critics of Holder's decision - mostly Republicans - argued the trial will give Mohammed and his co-defendants a world stage to spout hateful rhetoric. Holder said such concerns are misplaced, and any pronouncements by the suspects would only make them look worse.

"I have every confidence that the nation and the world will see him for the coward that he is," Holder told the committee. "I'm not scared of what Khalid Sheikh Mohammed has to say at trial - and no one else needs to be, either."

The attorney general said he does not believe holding the trial in New York - at a federal courthouse that has seen a number of high-profile terrorism trials in recent decades - will increase the risk of terror attacks there.

[Hsaive]

BUSH and CHENEY: Why arn't you freaked out that the biggest mass murderers of 9/11 are still roaming free?

[cantfiggeritout]

Our government is making a mockery of human dignity by giving these men a civilian trial. Why these murderers are still drawing breath makes no sense in light of their crimes. If we want to send a message to the Taliban that we aim to seek justice for the thousands of civilians, including children that they mass murdered on 9/11, I would be laughing all the way to the bank right about now if I were one of them. Who decided that these non - American criminals who cannot even be considered human when they consciously chose to cause thousands of innocent civilians and children to face horrendous deaths, merits us to spend a single US Dollar on them, which is what we are doing every day that they stay alive? We are probably going to convict them to death, anyway, and rightly so, but why all the hoopla regarding trials and then the eminent possibility of appeals? A trial is a hilarious move. If it is the goal of those who wish a trial to demonstrate our faith in a jury-system and the faith we place in each other to decide a fair case in the courts, how can we possibly come up with a non-biased jury to decide the case? Even so, if found guilty and put to death in the first go round, they are still being allowed to follow their idealogical agenda by being granted the right to a voice on a world forum. I thought our aim was to shut these monsters down, not give them a microphone. Haven?t we been victims of these fanatics long enough? When Qaddafi held us hostage in Sept by being given the microphone at the UN earlier this year, it manifested to the world that we are all still catering to terrorists. Appeal after appeal may keep these men alive, a gift they do not deserve. We should have stopped catering to them the minute they committed their acts of murder and killed them just as they had rehearsed so they could go be with their 100 virgins or whatevers.

[wheatfield2]

After discovering the new appointees to our Homeland Security department, juror choosing may be another point to ponder. Please google the Newsweek article "The Domestic Terror Threat". Pay attention to the poll results near the last paragraph.

What is horrifying is the difference between homegrown U.S. citizen Muslim opinions, and the foreign Muslim opinions. A higher percentage of U.S. born Muslims have a favorable outlook on Al Quaeda than Foreign born! In America, 7% have a favorable outlook on Al Quaeda, while only 3% foreign born approve of Al Quaeda.

And, 51 percent of American-born Muslims have a "very unfavorable" view of the terror group, compared with 63 percent of foreign-born Muslims feel that way. So I can assume that 49% of American Born Muslims may lean towards a sympathetic/favorable view of Al Quaeda, who has Jihad training camps all over the world.

What if these 911 terrorists "get lucky" and get the 49% American born Muslims that do not think Al Quaeda is unfavorable?
God Help America

[wheatfield2]

50BMS13

I enjoyed your posts.


It appears only certain posters' comments are allowed to stand. CBS must only want biased, one-sided opinions about the "not guilty" 911 attackers. The same ones are trolling over and over and reporting any opinion that doesn't agree with their own. It is sad name-calling posts such as """feces throwing monkeys like you"""are allowed for the public to read, but facts pertinent to the topic are not. The decisions to hold the trials in New York, for all the victims and families to relive the horrors over and over, is disrespect to the victims and families of 911.

[AOCGUY]

Methinks you are way to sensitive. Do you also see commies under you bed. All regular posters have seen their posts dissappear. It has more to do with poor design and maintenance than any conscious decision to censure.

[50BMS13]

wheatfield2
Thank you for compliment! There are a few posters that get real angry at some of the posts I write cause I guess I hit a nerve with them. So they must mark the post I put up as obscene although it aint. I'm ok with that. Anyone that is doing that truly cannot even have a civil discussion or debate. They choke up and get mad and mark my post as abusive. It is nice to hear that some do appreciate the thought I put into it though. Thank you muchly. I notice your name as a friendly one too. YES>>>>This moving the trial to New York is a travesty. New Yorkers want swift justice....not long drawn out court appearances. This should be done in a military tribunal behind closed doors. It was an act of war, not a civil act. What a mess we have now. Cheers...

[Brokennews]

How about this.
We put Michael Moore in the court room to take notes & have him produce his version of court room proceedings as short skits to be played after the 6 o'clock news every night??? How could the truth be distorted with that approach. George Clooney can play KSM and Mel Gibson can play the evil US Prosecutor. Proceeds from the DVD sales will go to CAIR.

[Empire-George]

by AOCGUY November 23, 2009 12:50 PM EST

First having this trial rather than a tribunal takes the air out of any claim that we don't have a fair system and life prevents them from becoming martyrs to a cause.
_______________

How exactly does the "fair system" jive with Obama firing hellfire missles from a UAV, becoming immediate judge/jury/executioner....if these 9/11 masterminds happen to be in a safe-house in Pakistan....how is that justice part of what you call a "fair system" of justice....shouldn't Obama take these terrorist prisoner and give them access to the "fair system" instead of slamming a missle down their throat ? (which I agree with, by the way)

[AOCGUY]

Empire - Like it or not what is happening in Afghanistan is combat. These five were arrested by intelligence/law enforcement agencies of a friendly country and extradited to US custody for crimes committed against the US. None of these five are accused of engaging in combat nor were they captured on the field of battle.

Now those GITMO prisoners captured on the field of battle who are charged with war crimes (I'll let you look up that definition) can be legitimately tried by a military commission.

Those still engaged in combat operations are targets.

[greatgrandpaw]

What does their criticism of our Foreign Policy have to do with the crime(s) that they committed? Because they disagree with that Foreign Policy gives them the right to do what they did???? Come on. They should be tried on what they did and not why they say they did it. In my "lowly" opinion they don't deserve any special treatment because they are being tried in a criminal court instead of a military court.

[SkirtsLifter]

by Empire-George November 23, 2009 11:19 AM EST
by SkirtsLifter November 23, 2009 11:00 AM EST
I didn't even mention that military secrets are at risk because of evidentiary disclosure
--------------
Discovery phase will.....what happened in the Moussawi trial, is the government was forced to reveal their list of un-indicted co-conspirators....which Al Qaeda then knew who the government was targeting, then those individuals went into hiding....this is the danger of having amateurs, posing as the President and Attorney General.....they don't have a clue....or maybe they do, and wish to put America and the former administration on trial...that's the real point here....it's a trial against Bush, the 9/11 masterminds will be lost in the political motive
_____________________

You may have a really good point here. A Bush trial. hmm

[hungry1968-17]

by Empire-George November 23, 2009 12:05 PM EST

You are counting on them having a "silver bullet" to convict ? welcome to New York, the city of Jury Nullification and no death penalty.....how could Obama suggest the death penalty, when that is not possible in Liberal New York ?






It's a federal court - NOT a state court.

[AOCGUY]

Personally I don't care if they get the death penalty. Spending the rest of their lives 23 out of every 24 hours in a box with no outside contact would actually be the preferred result. And yes, I think AG Holder has the necessary untainted evidence necessary to convict.

First having this trial rather than a tribunal takes the air out of any claim that we don't have a fair system and life prevents them from becoming martyrs to a cause.

[Empire-George]

by hungry1968-17 November 23, 2009 12:15 PM EST

Again....can't you read Dumbgry ? it says welcome to New York...the city of.....you know, the place where the trial is being held....

where did I mention New York State moron ?

[hungry1968-17]

by Empire-George November 23, 2009 12:01 PM EST

But instead of the death penalty, they get life in prison....same thing will happen with this trial, acquittal or prison....no death penalties handed out in NY, everyone knows that.

Maybe this is the reason Obama and Holder brought it to NY, to avoid death penalty and afraid of "offending mooselums"







If they get the death penalty, then they become "martyrs" and win.

Executing them is doing them a favor. Letting them rot in prison IS THEIR WORST CASE SCENARIO.

[briannorwood]

Hungry:

Couldn't agree more. The very worst thing for these terrorists is life in prison. No martyrdom, just day after day of monotonuous life in a 9x6 cell. And if they're lucky, a periodic drilling up the backdoor by a serial rapist named Bubba.

That would make me happy!