Bin Laden Wanted for...huh?

Originally posted by donwhite


This is in part due to the explanation just above, that defendants’ are entitled to know the case against them and on what it is based. In the area of intel and counter-intel, protecting sources is often much more important than prosecutions.

If you were in my class, the FBI agent would have been proud that you understand exactly. He did in fact mentioned about not allowing the court to see the evidence because of the value of the intel. He mentions that if the person cannot be tried for terrorist activites, at least they can charge the person for something else like entering the country illegally, or illegally possessing weapons, or drugs, etc. anything to keep a person that is considered dangerous in jail or deported out of the country.

I worked in the court system for 17 years. I have done over 1,500 client interviews and about half of those were criminal case related but most were for petty crimes. The prosecutors use a "loop-hole" that courts allow investigators to retain their handwritten "work-product" notebooks. Defendants of course, want to see those in particular.

This raises the old but still timely and always serious issue of prosecutions based on jail house informants. As well as those cases of co-defendants getting favorable plea bargains in exchange for testimony. What looks simple at first gets terribly complicated.

It may interest you to know that defense lawyers do not want to know whether a client is guilty or innocent. It is safe to presume he or she at least claims to be innocent. The cases are handled in that way. I was frequently remanded never to ask that question. But “knowing” that fact of guilt changes the dynamic between the lawyer and client, and not for the better. Sometimes a client wants to admit guilt . You may not be able to stop them. Other times, there may have been good eyewitnesses, or even DNA evidence, so guilt is not the issue, but explanation, mitigation or excuse becomes the lawyer’s function. It is a crime for a lawyer to conjure or invent a defense for an accused. It is a crime to suggest testimony, or to advise a client to lie. Which is not to say it is not done. But I'd say less often than many believe.



[edit on 11/9/2006 by donwhite]

I say that it would be impossible for us to try osama bin laden because if we got him in a court justice system we wouldnt be able to try him because he may lie without us knowing what he is lying about. Plus, we have no evidence who is behind the 9-11 attacks, but we do know what he was responsible, but that was in the past. If we would be proved wrong in a trial of court justice system we would be fundimentally screwed because Osama would be able to still continue running off after that.

No branch of the U.S. Government or any foreign governments have found conclusive evidence connecting Usama Bin Ladin to the 9/11 attacks, or the 7/7 attacks in London.

The fact is, if they took the evidence for convicting Bin Ladin to a non-biased court here in America he would walk.

Most of the 'evidence' connecting Bin Ladin is circumstancial at best. In fact, if you took the real evidence to court, it would become clear that parts of the U.S. government, along with some foreign power bankers, funded and managed the whole September 11th attacks.

7/7 was a dance to the same tune. Just a British version.


In conclusion: Bin ladin is a scape-goat who did anything Fox News tells you he did.

Fck it.

Originally posted by Great White Cheney
No branch of the U.S. Government or any foreign governments have found conclusive evidence connecting Usama Bin Ladin to the 9/11 attacks, or the 7/7 attacks in London.

The NSA and the Pentagon has conclusive proof, along with the CIA's interrogation of some of Bin Laden's lieutenants. Problem is that they can't use that in the court, because of under duress, not to mention the CIA don't want to reveal their sources.

The fact is, if they took the evidence for convicting Bin Ladin to a non-biased court here in America he would walk.

Wrong, since he was indicted for the 1998 embassy bombings, he be sentenced to life in prison, or perhaps executed. Wouldn't matter if lack of evidence linking him to the Cole bombing and the 9/11 attacks.

Most of the 'evidence' connecting Bin Ladin is circumstancial at best. In fact, if you took the real evidence to court, it would become clear that parts of the U.S. government, along with some foreign power bankers, funded and managed the whole September 11th attacks.

Real evidence? Provide some.

[edit on 10-11-2006 by deltaboy]

I was speaking only on the charges of the 9/11 attacks.

And yes, I'm sure the FBI and the CIA beat the # out of some muslims untill they told them, "Yes, im Al-Qaeda", "yes, I know Bin Ladin", "Yes, he did it".

I don;t trust the FBI or the CIA for #. Their "Evidence" is worthless here.