NationStates Jolt Archive

For those of you who remember me posting as " Beer and Guns " ( dont ask...: ) ...) this may seem odd...but am I the only other person who thinks that this guy even being FACING the death penalty is a bad thing ???

Those of us that are born and raised in the USA...we know what our rights are...correct ??

Among them the right to " REMAIN SILENT " and to not " INCRIMINATE OURSELVES "...you know the MIRANDA law...???

So here we are getting set to fry this critter because he essentially DID NOT TALK ...he kept silent...and because he did'nt tell all he knew to the FBI etc. 9/11 happened and he could have stopped it by ..NOT KEEPING SILENT .

Ummmm WTF is wrong with this picture ?

The COPS are supposed to catch the robbers ..the robbers are not supposed to call in and let them know where to go......

This is a sham and a feel good act of retribution against an idiot who got caught before he could do any harm.....DEATH PENALTY ???

Talk about your transparent cases..I can only hope the jury has at least one person on it with common sense .

Before the flamers start their motors ..remember if the government can find ways around the law to fry this idiot ..whats to stop them from doing it to you ?

The rule of law ...it keeps us from becomming Afghanistan ...etc.

Force our government to follow it even if you yourself want to shoot the bastard ..just like I do...and we will all be better off .

...

What?

The right to remain silent is there to avoid self-incrimination. It's not applicable when you're trying to remain silent about someone else's criminal conspiracy, especially when it will result in massive loss of life.

No, no. He's being charged with conspiracy and such, not with not talking. If he had talked he could have had a lesser sentence for cooperating, but the charge is not "not talking."

This is the best point ever made on NSG!
Best thread too!

Oh yeah! +1 for the post count!

They are frying him because he kept silent if he didn't thousands of people need not of died!! dumbass.:mad:

For those of you who remember me posting as " Beer and Guns " ( dont ask...: ) ...) this may seem odd...but am I the only other person who thinks that this guy even being FACING the death penalty is a bad thing ???

Those of us that are born and raised in the USA...we know what our rights are...correct ??

Among them the right to " REMAIN SILENT " and to not " INCRIMINATE OURSELVES "...you know the MIRANDA law...???

So here we are getting set to fry this critter because he essentially DID NOT TALK ...he kept silent...and because he did'nt tell all he knew to the FBI etc. 9/11 happened and he could have stopped it by ..NOT KEEPING SILENT .

Ummmm WTF is wrong with this picture ?

The COPS are supposed to catch the robbers ..the robbers are not supposed to call in and let them know where to go......

This is a sham and a feel good act of retribution against an idiot who got caught before he could do any harm.....DEATH PENALTY ???

Talk about your transparent cases..I can only hope the jury has at least one person on it with common sense .

Before the flamers start their motors ..remember if the government can find ways around the law to fry this idiot ..whats to stop them from doing it to you ?

The rule of law ...it keeps us from becomming Afghanistan ...etc.

Force our government to follow it even if you yourself want to shoot the bastard ..just like I do...and we will all be better off .

you have a good point. he is being charged with a crime which is essentially his right to commit. just goes to show that glaringly obvious contradictions in the law can be hidden by clever lawyers.

in a sort of related point. i was just wondering if anyone else thought it was kind of wrong that the jury was shown pictures and recordings of what happened on 9/11. my problem with this is it has nothing to do with the guy's guilt and seems only to be a tool to stir up the jury's emotions so that they will jump to a guilty verdict easier.

you have a good point. he is being charged with a crime which is essentially his right to commit. just goes to show that glaringly obvious contradictions in the law can be hidden by clever lawyers.

in a sort of related point. i was just wondering if anyone else thought it was kind of wrong that the jury was shown pictures and recordings of what happened on 9/11. my problem with this is it has nothing to do with the guy's guilt and seems only to be a tool to stir up the jury's emotions so that they will jump to a guilty verdict easier.
It's not one's right to remain silent about felonies others are going to commit. Doing so makes you part of a conspiracy. Right to remain silent applies only for the purposes of not incriminating yourself.

I seem to be the only one who doesn't know whats going on here. Who is being referred to, or what?

you have a good point. he is being charged with a crime which is essentially his right to commit. just goes to show that glaringly obvious contradictions in the law can be hidden by clever lawyers.

in a sort of related point. i was just wondering if anyone else thought it was kind of wrong that the jury was shown pictures and recordings of what happened on 9/11. my problem with this is it has nothing to do with the guy's guilt and seems only to be a tool to stir up the jury's emotions so that they will jump to a guilty verdict easier.
OMFG they saw what happened because the guy kept quiet!! what better evidence is there to show a jury that is deciding the fate of the man in question?? He could of stopped this attack, that is why this law is stupid.

I seem to be the only one who doesn't know whats going on here. Who is being referred to, or what?
The Zakarias Musaoui (sp?) trial.

They are frying him because he kept silent if he didn't thousands of people need not of died!! dumbass.:mad:

so when is the death penalty trial for the bosses who ignored the reports of the other 19 hijackers taking flying lessons and all the rest of the idiots and others who are named in the 9/11 report start ?

Hmmm answer that moron boy .

I seem to be the only one who doesn't know whats going on here. Who is being referred to, or what?
The terrorist that was meant to fly a plane into the white house on september the 11th, who was picked up by FBI before the attacks on the 11th, he knew all about the attacks and kept quiet about them so the attacks could go ahead.

I seem to be the only one who doesn't know whats going on here. Who is being referred to, or what?
You know, that guy. About the thing.

so when is the death penalty trial for the bosses who ignored the reports of the other 19 hijackers taking flying lessons and all the rest of the idiots and others who are named in the 9/11 report start ?

Hmmm answer that moron boy .
Moron boy? You're not even bright enough to consider the fact that the people named in the 9/11 report WEREN'T IN ON THE CONSPIRACY. That's the crux of the charges against him, conspiracy with al qaeda to commit acts of terror.

so when is the death penalty trial for the bosses who ignored the reports of the other 19 hijackers taking flying lessons and all the rest of the idiots and others who are named in the 9/11 report start ?

Hmmm answer that moron boy .
When did they recieve the reports?? and omg someone taking flying lessons must be a terrorist :rolleyes: who are these other idiots eh?? did they know there was an attack, did they know when and where?? that is right there was no one else that can be tried that knew all about the attacks. I am for this guy getting the death penalty.

OMFG they saw what happened because the guy kept quiet!! what better evidence is there to show a jury that is deciding the fate of the man in question?? He could of stopped this attack, that is why this law is stupid.

see, there, just proved my point. it just stired up your emotions. but it is not proof of his guilt. it is merely proof of what happened and doesn't link him to it in any way therefore it should be inadmissable as evidence in this guy's trial.

Moron boy? You're not even bright enough to consider the fact that the people named in the 9/11 report WEREN'T IN ON THE CONSPIRACY. That's the crux of the charges against him, conspiracy with al qaeda to commit acts of terror.
Thank you. :)

see, there, just proved my point. it just stired up your emotions. but it is not proof of his guilt. it is merely proof of what happened and doesn't link him to it in any way therefore it should be inadmissable as evidence in this guy's trial.
HE ADMITTED HE KNEW OF THE ATTACKS BUT REFUSED TO SPEAK TO OFFICIALS UNTIL AFTER THEY HAPPENED!!
Showing the jury what happened because of his silence is fair evidence because of that.

see, there, just proved my point. it just stired up your emotions. but it is not proof of his guilt. it is merely proof of what happened and doesn't link him to it in any way therefore it should be inadmissable as evidence in this guy's trial.
His guilt has already been established during the trial. He's even admitted to it. Currently we are in the peanalty phase. His guilt has already been proven in a court of law.

Why is this thread attracting so many people who don't seem to know what they're talking about?

http://www.forbes.com/home/feeds/ap/2006/04/13/ap2669127.html

Show me the clause in the miranda law that says except for " Zacarias Moussaoui "



A GUIDE TO THE PRIVILEGE AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION

Other resources at this site on Fifth Amendment jurisprudence:
[The Law of Confession] [Self-Incrimination] [Interrogation and Confession]

The foundation for Miranda v. Arizona (1966) was laid in Malloy v. Hogan (1964) which applied the privilege against self-incrimination to state criminal proceedings and Escobedo v. Illinois (1964) which allowed consultation with an attorney about the privilege against self-incrimination. Because Malloy, or the privilege against self-incrimination, is a primary component of the 5th Amendment, and Escobedo, or the right to counsel, is a primary component of the 6th Amendment, Miranda, or Miranda Law, is usually referred to as "the marriage of the 5th and 6th Amendment". It is therefore not a simple 5th Amendment case nor a simple self-incrimination case. What it deals with are confessions and interrogations, two words that don't even appear in the 5th Amendment.

Miranda is a "bright line" rule (beyond which nobody should cross) intended to forever extinguish the use of COERCION but allowing PRESSURE. It was not intended, as the exclusionary rule was, to reform the police or improve society, but to simply draw the line on coercion, much like Brown v. Mississippi (1936) was intended to outlaw torture. It was not intended to eliminate interrogation, which is inherently stressful and necessarily involves pressure. The purpose of Miranda is to neutralize the distinct psychological disadvantage that suspects are under when dealing with police.

Confessions, prior to Miranda, were only required to meet the voluntariness test, a requirement that all confessions must be voluntary, an exercise of free will on the part of a suspect. This requirement was usually met if the suspect's physical, mental, and emotional condition was stable at the time of making a confession. Today, the voluntariness test and its totality-of-circumstances component continues to be used, but in our post-Miranda era, police must prove they read specific Miranda warnings and obtained an intelligent waiver. Miranda law is not offense-specific; it doesn't matter if the offense is a felony or misdemeanor.

Specific Miranda warnings include the following statements:

You have the right to remain silent.
Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law.
You have the right to talk to a lawyer and have him present with you during questioning.
If you cannot afford a lawyer, one will be appointed to represent you, if you wish.
Intelligent waiver:

Do you understand each of these rights as I have explained them to you?
Having these rights in mind, do you wish to talk to us now?
There was much concern in the wake of Miranda over the exact wording of the above statements. Police often carried and read from little cards to avoid a favorite tactic of defense attorneys--embarrassing the officer on the stand in repeating the exact words from memory. Over the years, however, Miranda has been "eroded" somewhat (although the courts will not tolerate deliberately reckless departures from the exact wording), as in the case of Duckworth v. Eagan (1989) which held that the following words, although less than perfectly clear, were still acceptable:

You have the right to talk to a lawyer for advice before we ask you any questions, and to have him or her with you during questioning. You have the right to the advice and presence of a lawyer even if you cannot afford to hire one. We have no way of giving you a lawyer, but one will be appointed for you, if you wish, if and when you go to court.
A violation of Miranda law will result in immediate (and automatic) suppression of evidence, rendering whatever statements the suspect made to the police and any use the police made with those statements inadmissible in court. However, a violation of Miranda law, in itself, is not grounds for an acquittal nor a reversal of conviction. Two rules have been established in appellate procedure which are followed very strictly.

THE HARMLESS ERROR DOCTRINE
THE AUTOMATIC REVERSAL RULE

If an involuntary confession is admitted at trial, but the effect was harmless and did not have a prejudicial impact because there was other overwhelming evidence, the conviction must be upheld. If an involuntary confession is admitted at trial, and the constitutional violation is such that the suspect never understood their right to a lawyer, the conviction must be reversed.

Miranda warnings are "triggered", or apply and have to be read, if TWO elements are present: CUSTODY and INTERROGATION. Both are more difficult to define than what might appear at first glance. It is important to note that BOTH elements must be present at the same time, what might be called CUSTODIAL INTERROGATION, although for purposes of understanding, we will treat each term separately.

CUSTODY is the Miranda equivalent of arrest. It does not include traffic stops or brief field interviews based on reasonable suspicion. Nor does it apply to telephone calls, since the suspect is always free to hang up. There is no litmus test (checklist), but an objective test is used to determine if custody occurs. The officer's subjective intent to arrest does not matter. What matters is if, objectively, a reasonable person would believe that an officer conveyed, by words or actions, that a suspect is not free to leave. It also does not matter why the suspect is in custody. Warnings must be given if the suspect is arrested or in jail for one crime and being questioned for another crime.

The general rule is that custody occurs whenever a suspect is placed in "unfamiliar and hostile surroundings". A look at some examples will demonstrate how restrictive this rule really is:

Questioning at the police station. This is not automatically a custodial situation. It depends on whether the suspect was brought in handcuffed or accompanied officers voluntarily. It also depends upon whether questioning takes place in a closed room across a desk or not. Some parts of police stations, like interrogation rooms, are examples of hostile surroundings, while other parts are not hostile at all.
Questioning in a police vehicle. This is not automatically a custodial situation. If a suspect is locked in the back seat of a cruiser equipped with a screen, this is obviously a hostile surrounding. But with other types of vehicles and the rare front seat interview, the custodial aspect is questionable.
Questioning at the crime scene. Generally, Miranda does not apply to on-the-street and on-scene questioning. Officers routinely ask "What happened" at traffic accidents without Miranda warnings. However, if the circumstances are such that it can be reasonably inferred that police are probably going to arrest somebody, Miranda must be read. An example would be if somebody appeared intoxicated after a traffic accident where the reasonable belief that police wouldn't let this person drive home triggers Miranda.
Questioning at the suspect's home. Again, the words and actions of the officer questioning a suspect at home must signify a hostile or intimidating atmosphere to trigger Miranda. An example of intimidating action would be waking the suspect up at 4:00 a.m. to talk to them. An example of non-intimidating action would be dropping by the suspect's house at a more regular time of day, say 8:00 a.m.
INTERROGATION is questioning that goes beyond the simple "What happened" and "What did you do, see, or hear?" to questions that imply a suspect's involvement in crime. Questions about motive, alibi, ability, or opportunity to do the crime are all examples of interrogation, such as "Where were you on the night of October 13th?" Usually, this insinuating or judgmental tone is prefaced by rapport-building, or treating the suspect like family. For example:

"How are you? Are you comfortable? Do you want something to drink?" is NOT an INTERROGATION.

"How are you? Are you comfortable? Do you want something to drink? Are you tired? When was the last time you slept. Oh, and by the way, where were you on the night of October 13th?" is an INTERROGATION.

Interrogation inherently involves PERSUASION or PRESSURE. The ultimate goal of interrogation is to obtain a confession, or at least an admission (soft confession)..., anything that would implicate the suspect in criminal behavior. It can safely be assumed nobody would voluntarily implicate themselves to police, but interrogation necessarily involves persuading or convincing a person that it would be in their best interests to do so. Interrogation is changing a person's mind so that they want to tell the police everything they did wrong, and getting them to help convict themselves.

The Supreme Court has treated interrogation as testimony (spoken or written words), or its functional equivalent. Anything like spontaneous utterances or asking a suspect to write down in their own words what happened is the functional equivalent of interrogation. The functional equivalence rule covers any action, deception, or trickery designed to elicit an incriminating response. If, for example, two police officers talk out loud to themselves in front of a suspect with the intent of being overheard and eliciting a "Hey, wait a minute" response from the suspect, this is the functional equivalent of an interrogation. Asking somebody to fill out the narrative section of a police form is also a functional equivalent. Legally, there are three levels of communication: (1) spontaneous utterances; (2) express questioning (Would you like to make a phone call?); and interrogation. Lying to a suspect that an eyewitness has fingered them is a functional equivalent of express questioning, not interrogation, but if it is designed to elicit an incriminating response, it is interrogation. Below is a summary of most of the rules, doctrines, or standards dealing with the Court's treatment of interrogation.

The Functional Equivalence Rule (Rhode Island v. Innis 1980). Silence, manipulation, "guilt trips", and any other tricks by interrogators designed to elicit a spontaneous incrimination are the functional equivalent of an interrogation.
The Deliberately-Eliciting-a-Response Standard. High-tech listening, or bugging, devices that are unknown to the suspect do not deliberately elicit an incriminating response, and therefore can be used without Miranda warnings.
The Massiah Doctrine. If an undercover officer is used, and the suspect doesn't know it's an undercover officer, Miranda does not apply. Also, if a previously Mirandized suspect is let out on bail or held in lockup, an undercover operative can obtain incriminating testimony thru infiltration or sharing a jail cell (Illinois v. Perkins 1990).
The Edwards Rule. If a suspect makes a clear, unambiguous request for counsel, police must cease questioning. Clear and unambiguous must be stronger language than "Maybe I should talk to a lawyer". Also, if after police cease questioning, the suspect himself re-initiates conversation, exchanges, or further communication with police, and incriminating statements may be used at trial.
A SUMMARY OF EXCEPTIONS TO THE MIRANDA RULE

ATTORNEY WAIVERS (Moran v. Burbine 1985) If a suspect is talking to police after having waived his right to have an attorney present and the suspect's lawyer has called the police to indicate a desire to advise his client not to talk, the police are under no obligation to inform the suspect of his lawyer's wishes.
BOOKING PROCEDURES (Pennsylvania v. Muniz 1990) Miranda is not required if standard police procedures are being followed, specifically booking procedures, where a suspect is fingerprinted and photographed, e.g.
DELAYED WARNINGS (Oregon v. Elstad 1985) If a suspect confesses right away prior to receiving Miranda warnings but is later given warnings at the police station and confesses, the initial statements may not be used, but the later confession can be used. The failure to give warnings right way does not invalidate later interrogations.
DERIVATIVE EVIDENCE (Michigan v. Tucker 1974) Applies if suspect has not been Mirandized and asserts an alibi defense in response to police questioning. If police check out the alibi, and it, or the witness leads from it, lead to incriminating information against the suspect, it can be used against them. The reliability of any witness's testimony is not affected by Miranda violations.
ILLEGAL SEARCH AND SEIZURE (New York v. Harris 1990) If the police unlawfully enter a home and illegally make an arrest, but then take the suspect to the police station, read him his rights, and he confesses, the illegal search and seizure do no taint the subsequent legal confession.
IMPEACHMENT (Harris v. New York 1971) Impeachment is the in-trial process of destroying a witness' credibility. The law allows an illegally obtained confession to be admitted at trial if the defendant testifies on their own behalf. This is to show that the defendant committed perjury. Also, silence at the time of police interrogation is a presumption of guilt if the defendant later attempts a defense strategy of self-defense at trial. This is because if self-defense was the motive, it would have been reasonable for the defendant to tell the police about it.
INDEPENDENT EVIDENCE (Arizona v. Fulminante 1991) If an inmate is under threat of physical attack by other prisoners and a fellow inmate, in reality an undercover officer, promises to protect him in return for the truth, the confession is coerced because of the threat of physical attack, but the conviction need not be overturned if sufficient independent evidence supporting a guilty verdict is introduced.
PRIVATE SECURITY (U.S. v. Garlock 1994) Talking to a probation officer, a private detective (perhaps one hired by the victim's family), or any private law enforcement official does not involve Miranda at all. Even the most outrageous conduct of private actors cannot violate a suspect's 5th Amendment right against self-incrimination.
PUBLIC SAFETY (New York v. Quarles 1984) If police capture or chase somebody who has hid or discarded a gun or drugs somewhere where innocent members of the public might come across this contraband, the officers don't have to read Miranda in order to ask "Where is it?"
PURGED TAINT (Wong Sun v. U.S. 1963) A confession obtained following an unlawful arrest is admissible if the "taint" caused by the police illegality is somehow "purged". Usually applies in cases involving multiple questioning at different points in time; e.g., marathon interrogations with breaks, or (more commonly) the suspect coming back in voluntarily to continue answering questions after being released. The suspect's voluntariness to talk after a break in time "purges" the taint of previous police illegality.
RESUMED QUESTIONING (Michigan v. Mosley 1975) If a second officer a few hours later in a different room starts a new interrogation, the suspect does not have to be re-Mirandized, although something called the staleness doctrine will apply if a significant period of time has passed. Re-Mirandizing is required if there are two or more interrogations by different police agencies, state and federal, for example.
SURREPTITIOUS QUESTIONING (Illinois v. Perkins 1990) The Miranda rule and a suspect's 5th Amendment rights are not violated if undercover police or their informants are used to obtain incriminating testimony from a suspect. The suspect's 6th Amendment rights are violated, however, if any of these techniques are used after formal charges have been filed. Miranda warnings are not required when suspect is unaware he is speaking to a law enforcement official.
THE DEBATE OVER MIRANDA

Two years after Miranda v. Arizona was handed down in 1966, Congress passed 18 U.S.C. Section 3501 to blunt the effect of Miranda. Statutory law 3501 made the giving of Miranda warnings but one factor, among many, in determining if a confession is admissible, and more importantly, made the violation of any one factor, including the absence of Miranda warnings, acceptable in terms of getting the confession admitted on grounds of voluntariness. Statutory law 3501 never saw much use because Justice and police officials assumed it was unconstitutional, and therefore ignored it. The Supreme Court never had an opportunity to rule on it until 1999 when a case appeared in the Fourth Circuit and gave Justices the opportunity to debate the pros and cons of Miranda law the following year:

Dickerson v. U.S. (2000) was the name of the case, and it came down in a 7-2 decision instead of the 5-4 vote in the original Miranda case. Dickerson will probably go down in history books as a landmark case in suspect rights advisement. Briefly, Charles Dickerson was picked up by the FBI for questioning about a bank robbery in Alexandria, Virginia. He was interviewed twice, first without his Miranda rights, and with some dispute over the second interview. Eventually, he led police to a search of his apartment and a pickup of his co-offenders. At his trial, the confession was suppressed, but the Fourth Circuit of Appeals overruled the suppression on grounds of Section 3501. The case then went to the U.S. Supreme Court to debate the pros and cons of letting Miranda law stand.

Chief Justice Rehnquist delivered the majority opinion of the court to let Miranda law stand (with Justices Breyer, Ginsburg, Kennedy, O'Connor, Souter, and Stevens on his side). Justice Scalia wrote the dissent (with Justice Thomas on his side). Attorney James Hundley represented the petitioner. Janet Reno represented the government's position. University of Utah professor, Paul Cassell, a lifelong critic of Miranda law, wrote an amicus curiae brief, attacking Miranda. The following pros and cons are reflected in various briefs, opinions, and dissents in Dickerson:

PETITIONER'S REASONS FOR LETTING MIRANDA LAW STAND

1 - Principles of stare decisis dictate that Miranda not be overruled. Over 33 years of precedent have engrained Miranda law as a bedrock principle of law and legal opinion.

2 - Miranda warnings have proven to be "workable" in practice. Police officers do not find it difficult to administer because of its ease and clarity of application. It has not been shown to undermine law enforcement.

3 - Public expectations have been shaped favorably and reliantly by the popularization of Miranda. It promotes a perception of fairness, integrity, and respect for the Constitution and criminal justice system.

4 - The various exceptions to Miranda's exclusionary rule have not "eroded" Miranda, but instead have been remarkably consistent and true to the core holdings of law. In other words, Miranda has shepherded a number of "good" laws and doctrinal developments in its wake.

5 - The factual premises under which Miranda was founded still exist. Although police brutality and coercion have lessened, it cannot be said that psychological coercion no longer exists. Police interrogation procedures are still inherently menacing.

6 - Miranda is sound in principle and consistent with the text of the Fifth Amendment which it flows logically from, and closely matches. Although the historical record is sparse, Miranda can be seen as the natural outgrowth of over a hundred years of Fifth Amendment guarantees.

THE GOVERNMENT'S POSITION ON MIRANDA

1 - Miranda should not be overturned because it is cost-effective in terms of good and evil. There are undeniable instances in which it imposes costs on the truth-seeking function of trial, but overall, it has made law enforcement more efficient and good.

2 - Miranda's core procedures are workable, and police find little difficulty in its administration. What problems exist occur in extensions as the Edwards context. ATF has long adopted the practice of requiring Miranda even in non-custodial settings because of its ease and clarity.

3 - A return to a totality-of-circumstances voluntariness test is unlikely to be more workable than Miranda. If Miranda warnings are not required, the result will be uncertainty for the police and an additional volume of litigation on the totality standard.

4 - Overturning Miranda would upset settled public opinion by overruling a well-known and widely applied law that has had a stabilizing effect on public confidence and reliability in the criminal justice system.

5 - Arguments that Miranda's "prophylactic" requirements sweep more broadly than the Fifth Amendment requires are unfounded. Miranda is a procedural safeguard, not an attempt to mold police conduct for its own sake. There are other contexts in which the Court has recognized prophylactic rules to safeguard constitutional rights.

6 - Although it is debatable if the coercive environment of police interrogation is the same today as thirty years ago, there is still a need for Miranda because of the risk that pressure may undermine an individual's will to resist. Technological substitutes, such as videotaping, are promising but as of yet offer no assurances on as large a scale as Miranda warnings.

THE CASSELL BRIEF AGAINST MIRANDA LAW

1 - The benefits of Miranda are preserved virtually intact by Section 3501, which is the more constitutionally valid law as opposed to Miranda's draconian remedy. The automatic character of Miranda's exclusionary rule is excessive while Section 3501's remedy thwarts involuntary confessions more in keeping with the text of the Fifth Amendment.

2 - Miranda created a new, non-constitutional right and prophylactic rule that sweeps more broadly than the Constitution. No one has ever sketched a consistent theory explaining Miranda's constitutional basis in the Fifth Amendment. By comparison, the search and seizure exclusionary rule is based on actual violations of the Fourth Amendment. Miranda's exclusionary rule is based on technical violations of judge-made law.

3 - The Court overstepped its authority in handing down Miranda. It is best seen as an exercise of the Court's power to craft safeguards in the absence of legislative action. It leaves nothing for Congress to do, and embellishes the judicial branch for all time as law-giver.

4 - Widespread application of Miranda warnings by the states does not make Miranda law constitutional or law of the land. A rule that has changed in many respects through various exceptions is not the strongest candidate for common law doctrine.

5 - Miranda has harmed and "straight jacketed" law enforcement. DEA, as opposed to ATF, holds many more custodial interrogations, and they report problems. The government's position even seems to imply unspoken problems in enforcement, or only if the Edwards context were clarified. Miranda is extraconstitutional because it requires police to affirmatively assist the suspect in making a shrewder decision about whether to talk.

6 - Other remedies, such as civil liability, exist to safeguard suspect advisement rights. 18 U.S.C. 241 and 242 also protect deprivation of rights under color of law. A number of state ethics rules forbid contact with suspects represented by counsel. Internal investigations of police agencies themselves are more advanced than thirty years ago.

7 - The Court should at least overturn Miranda's irrebuttable presumption that confessions obtained without technical compliance to Miranda procedures are inherently involuntary. Such a presumption is just not congruent with the facts of most confessions, and is out of proportion to the vast majority of cases. Per se rules should not be applied when there are important exceptional contexts.

8 - Upholding Miranda law plays little role in maintaining confidence in the criminal justice system. Much more important is the search for truth. Public confidence cannot possibly be enhanced by a rule that conceals truth.

THE SCALIA DISSENT AGAINST UPHOLDING MIRANDA LAW

1 - The Court did not just apply the Constitution when it handed down Miranda, it expanded the Constitution, imposing an immense and antidemocratic prophylactic rule upon Congress and the states. It was an example of raw, judicial power that simply asserted a constitutional right.

2 - Preventing foolish people from incriminating themselves is the only purpose of Miranda, and that is a far cry from what the Fifth Amendment requires in terms of protecting someone from being compelled to incriminate themself. Nor is a lawyer required because the interrogators can do the same as any lawyer can -- tell the suspect they have a right to be silent. The Constitution is not offended by a criminal's commendable qualm of conscience or fortunate fit of stupidity.

3 - There is no support for a Miranda right in history, precedent, or common sense. In fact, later cases, such as the 60 or so that the Court has heard in the 34 years since Miranda have easily undermined its doctrinal underpinnings and pointed out that its application and enforcement is problematic.

4 - It is not clear why the totality-of-circumstances test is more difficult for law enforcement to administer than Miranda. As Justice O'Connor has pointed out many times, voluntariness is not without its strengths by permitting each fact to be taken into account without resort to formal and dispositive labels. Voluntariness is indeed the more constitutional standard.

5 - Miranda should not be preserved simply because it occupies a special place in the public consciousness. There is little harm in admitting that we made a mistake in taking away from people their ability to decide for themselves. By overturning Miranda, we reaffirm for the people the wonderful reality that they govern themselves, as stated in the Tenth Amendment.

Um, technically te man is an accessory to premeditated murder on over three thousand counts. Either they kill him or they lock him up, to leech off the system for the rest of his life. Personally, I think the man should be tied to the top of a very tall building, and the thing blown up, just to give him an idea of what he and his mates put other people through

That clause you just posted doesn't matter shit in this case, the fact is he is a murdering asshole, even though he didn't commit the murders himself, but question is would they have died if he had spoken, logically no so that makes him a murderer. I think the correct termonology here is withholding evidence!!

http://www.forbes.com/home/feeds/ap/2006/04/13/ap2669127.html

Show me the clause in the miranda law that says except for " Zacarias Moussaoui "
The part that refers to Self Incrimination. Moussaoui could have revealed the conspiracy before it took place without incriminating himself. He chose not to. That makes him part of the conspiracy.

The foundation for Miranda v. Arizona (1966) was laid in Malloy v. Hogan (1964) which applied the privilege against self-incrimination to state criminal proceedings and Escobedo v. Illinois (1964) which allowed consultation with an attorney about the privilege against self-incrimination. Because Malloy, or the privilege against self-incrimination, is a primary component of the 5th Amendment,

You do not have a right to protect a criminal who you know is about to commit a crime. Particularly a violent crime. Remaining silent in order to prevent incriminating someone else results in charges relating to criminal conspiracy.

Um, technically te man is an accessory to premeditated murder on over three thousand counts. Either they kill him or they lock him up, to leech off the system for the rest of his life. Personally, I think the man should be tied to the top of a very tall building, and the thing blown up, just to give him an idea of what he and his mates put other people through
I was thinking of letting everyone in america poke him with burning sticks till he melted, but both ways work.

Thought it was "miranda rights" am I wrong?

He wasn't remaining silent to prevent self-incrimination, he was remaining silent so his buddies could commit murder.

Moron boy? You're not even bright enough to consider the fact that the people named in the 9/11 report WEREN'T IN ON THE CONSPIRACY. That's the crux of the charges against him, conspiracy with al qaeda to commit acts of terror.

Then put him on trial for " conspiracy with al qaeda to commit acts of terror."

You are saying he was conspiring to commit a crime and should have told the police / FBI etc. that when he was arrested correct ? If he did so he would have been incriminating himself in a crime ..correct ? He is PRESUMED to be innocent until proven guilty..at least thats what I hear .

Is conspiring with Al Queda to commit acts of terror by itself a DEATH PENALTY CASE ?

Or is it a major felony.....a misdemeanor ? What ....are the guidlines for the only one who got caught ..before he actually did anything .

The point is to follow the rule of law.

I would love to put two bullets in the back of this guys head ...BUT the GOVERNMENT is trying to do it for me ...IMO in the wrong way .
THATS MY POINT .

I dont think he is innocent of any fucking thing .

Get that straight .

I'm rally no concerned. Either he'll die, or they'll put him in the general prison population and they'll do a Jeffrey Dahmer on him. Dahmer died badly by the way. :)

They are frying him because he kept silent if he didn't thousands of people need not of died!! dumbass.:mad:

Please tell me you're not really from Scotland. I don't want to have anything in common with someone who not only can't argue without insulting their opponent, but also has no idea of the definition of : "of" and furthermore doesn't appear to have understood the topic ... :headbang:

Send this man to the "Paradise" he sought to send himself to, however perhaps lethal injection or whatever way they find to terminate his worthless life, won't be half as bad as what he sought to do to innocent people. The harshest penalty should be imposed on him, in my view. But what actually happens will be up to the courts to decide.

Then put him on trial for " conspiracy with al qaeda to commit acts of terror."

You are saying he was conspiring to commit a crime and should have told the police / FBI etc. that when he was arrested correct ? If he did so he would have been incriminating himself in a crime ..correct ? He is PRESUMED to be innocent until proven guilty..at least thats what I hear .

Is conspiring with Al Queda to commit acts of terror by itself a DEATH PENALTY CASE ?

Or is it a major felony.....a misdemeanor ? What ....are the guidlines for the only one who got caught ..before he actually did anything .

The point is to follow the rule of law.

I would love to put two bullets in the back of this guys head ...BUT the GOVERNMENT is trying to do it for me ...IMO in the wrong way .
THATS MY POINT .

I dont think he is innocent of any fucking thing .

Get that straight .
Let me put it this way, he could of been sitting in a police interview room and say this. "Some guys i met at flying school are planning on attacking <said targets> you should stop them", whereas he said ".............*tumble weed*........ " That way he wasn't putting himself in the line of fire so to speak, but saying nothing atall allowed thousands to die, he need not of put himself in the way. Hell he could of made a tip off about the places getting attacked adn get them evacuated!!

Then put him on trial for " conspiracy with al qaeda to commit acts of terror."

You are saying he was conspiring to commit a crime and should have told the police / FBI etc. that when he was arrested correct ? If he did so he would have been incriminating himself in a crime ..correct ? He is PRESUMED to be innocent until proven guilty..at least thats what I hear .

Is conspiring with Al Queda to commit acts of terror by itself a DEATH PENALTY CASE ?

Or is it a major felony.....a misdemeanor ? What ....are the guidlines for the only one who got caught ..before he actually did anything .

The point is to follow the rule of law.

I would love to put two bullets in the back of this guys head ...BUT the GOVERNMENT is trying to do it for me ...IMO in the wrong way .
THATS MY POINT .

I dont think he is innocent of any fucking thing .

Get that straight .
When you know someone is planning to commit a felony and you don't report it to the authorities you're guilty of conspiracy. Here's a link explaining the legal definition of conspiracy. http://www.lectlaw.com/def/c103.htm

This has nothing to do with self-incrimination. It doesn't take a genius to figure this out.

I'm rally no concerned. Either he'll die, or they'll put him in the general prison population and they'll do a Jeffrey Dahmer on him. Dahmer died badly by the way. :)
I don't want him to die. I know it isn't right or legal, but I'd like to know that he's being raped on a daily basis, preferably by inmates with HIV, and I'd like it to be common knowledge among prospective terrorists that they will share his fate if caught.

Please tell me you're not really from Scotland. I don't want to have anything in common with someone who not only can't argue without insulting their opponent, but also has no idea of the definition of : "of" and furthermore doesn't appear to have understood the topic ... :headbang:
I am from scotland, i realise i should of put "have" but that lack of my education does not make it any less obvious that the OP is a dumbass that was saying because he kept quiet it is not fair to trial him as he has teh right to stay quiet. He has teh right to stay quiet, yes he does, but if that right is going to cause countless hurt and suffering and allow crimes to be commited that right is void. My insultation was not part of my arguement is was my sheer reaction to what OP put, it in my opinion is a stupid comment and anyone who is saying "blah blah" trying to question this mans verdict and make the government look bad about such a painful topic, is a dumbass.

Or is it a major felony.....a misdemeanor ? What ....are the guidlines for the only one who got caught ..before he actually did anything .
Precisely. If he had talked before any crime was committed he couldn't have been charged with conspiracy. Because he didn't talk that made him guilty of conspiracy.

I.E.:
Talking about a crime you know is going to be committed = not a crime.
Not talking about a crime you know is going to be committed = conspiracy.

'The Fifth'

"Did you know about the crime?"
"I did, I was involved."
GOOD (He actually chooses to waive his fifth ammendment right)

"Did you know about the crime?"
"I'm not answering."
"Since you're not answering we can only assume you're guilty"
BAD (Evidence proving he knew about and his involvement will have to come from other sources)

here you go ..read it .

http://news.findlaw.com/legalnews/us/terrorism/cases/index.html#moussaoui

fry them all .

I was thinking of letting everyone in america poke him with burning sticks till he melted, but both ways work.

Also a good one....

Precisely. If he had talked before any crime was committed he couldn't have been charged with conspiracy. Because he didn't talk that made him guilty of conspiracy.

I.E.:
Talking about a crime you know is going to be committed = not a crime.
Not talking about a crime you know is going to be committed = conspiracy.

'The Fifth'

"Did you know about the crime?"
"I did, I was involved."
GOOD (He actually chooses to waive his fifth ammendment right)

"Did you know about the crime?"
"I'm not answering."
"Since you're not answering we can only assume you're guilty"
BAD (Evidence proving he knew about and his involvement will have to come from other sources)


Is being guilty of the crime a death penalty offense or is our government..bending the rules a bit and frying him to make us all feel better ???

No one is arguing this scunbags innocence..only the way the case was made against him. Read the case history ..... If this case is used a an example death row is going to get really crowded .

Then put him on trial for " conspiracy with al qaeda to commit acts of terror."


I'd guess to correct trial would be "conspiracy on murder on 3000 souls"


You are saying he was conspiring to commit a crime and should have told the police / FBI etc. that when he was arrested correct ? If he did so he would have been incriminating himself in a crime ..correct ? He is PRESUMED to be innocent until proven guilty..at least thats what I hear .


I hear that too, but, at least it is so back here in Denmark, you MUST tell the police, FBI, government, any official agency, if you know just the slightest about a crime. Even if you're in it.


Is conspiring with Al Queda to commit acts of terror by itself a DEATH PENALTY CASE ?


As I see no civilized reason for death penalty, I would say no.


Or is it a major felony.....a misdemeanor ? What ....are the guidlines for the only one who got caught ..before he actually did anything .


See above.


The point is to follow the rule of law.


And so they do, from my knowledge. Then again, my knowledge is based on JAG and the Danish Law :p


I would love to put two bullets in the back of this guys head ...BUT the GOVERNMENT is trying to do it for me ...IMO in the wrong way .
THATS MY POINT .


The government shouldn't end anybodies lifes. Thats my point.


I dont think he is innocent of any fucking thing .


As mentioned before by somebody (I do not recall the name) and by me: He was withholding information about a crime. Here in Denmark there is no difference in planning a crime and acting the crime.


Get that straight .

Sure, I am straight :cool:

Nice one, instead of just throwing this guy in jail to rot you have to create another martyr. Whats the point in executing him, justice? Well no because its gonna do squat. Revenge? ahh thats closer to the mark. The only reason he's probably admitted to this is because he wants to be a martyr, to symbolise the stuggle against the evil west. That should recruit rather than deter new Al queda members. On a side note when was the death penalty introduced for conspiricy, laws not my specialty.

Is being guilty of the crime a death penalty offense or is our government..bending the rules a bit and frying him to make us all feel better ???

No one is arguing this scunbags innocence..only the way the case was made against him. Read the case history ..... If this case is used a an example death row is going to get really crowded .
Oh, you've changed the question from "is it right to charge him" to "is this a death penalty charge."

I personally think it would depend on how much he was involved in it. I haven't read the court's opinion on why they think death should be an option.

HE ADMITTED HE KNEW OF THE ATTACKS BUT REFUSED TO SPEAK TO OFFICIALS UNTIL AFTER THEY HAPPENED!!
Showing the jury what happened because of his silence is fair evidence because of that.

Excuse me Opus, but you are not grasping the bottom line here. Convicting Moussaoui and sentencing him to death because he withheld information is not only a bad precedent, it excuses the FBI's incompetence in regards to his case.

Why the fuck does everyone expect a hardcore terrorist to declare his intentions to the public? He's a terrorist and it was the FBI's job to figure out what he was up to without expecting him to fess up of his own free will. The whole thing about withholding information is just petty sour grapes on the part of the FBI because the brass couldn't get their heads out of their asses in time to listen to their agents and figure out he wasn't planning to start his own airline the flight school lessons before 9-11.

Furthermore, Moussaoui is being planned as nothing more than an effigy to be burned as proxy for Al Qaeda. It's a token measure by the government hoping it'll make the public and relatives of 9-11 victims feel better despite the glaring intelligence discoordination that lead up to those horrible attacks. In fact the only reason the government wants to put him on death row is as a publicity ploy. If he was a member of some obscure group who failed at a 9-11 attempt he'd get Life at most.

But the point is, if Moussaoui can be sentenced to death for withholding information, it lowers civil rights threshold for everyone else. It's opening up a direction that can lead to ridiculous events like Capital Punishment for perjury or something that's straight out of a High School Zero Tolerance Policy nightmare. Not to mention a death sentence for not being a stool pigeon basically eliminates the concept of Burden of Proof on the part of law enforcement.

He has been found guilty. Now we are in the sentencing part of the trial.

As such, I wonder what is the point of showing all the 9/11 footage. We know what happened, we know what he is guilty is (and it's not of flying a plane into a building) so what good is it to show recording of what happened other than stir emotion?

Hell, I'd like to remind the jury and NS general that conspiring to kill someone is not killing someone. They have different sentencing. That guy didn't fly a plane in the twin towers. He was in jail during that time. So what is the relevance of the footage? He was supposed to fly a plane in the White House. Show footage of THAT building instead, no?

Nice one, instead of just throwing this guy in jail to rot you have to create another martyr. Whats the point in executing him, justice? Well no because its gonna do squat. Revenge? ahh thats closer to the mark. The only reason he's probably admitted to this is because he wants to be a martyr, to symbolise the stuggle against the evil west. That should recruit rather than deter new Al queda members. On a side note when was the death penalty introduced for conspiricy, laws not my specialty.

Forgot that point in my first post. Yes, he will become a martyr. And that is the sole reason he spoke. What if he was put on some desert island, guarded by Commaches (the choppers, idiot!) and a little group of Delta Force soldiers? Perhaps he should just be send to Guantanamo and be isolated there?

Excuse me Opus, but you are not grasping the bottom line here. Convicting Moussaoui and sentencing him to death because he withheld information is not only a bad precedent, it excuses the FBI's incompetence in regards to his case.

Why the fuck does everyone expect a hardcore terrorist to declare his intentions to the public? He's a terrorist and it was the FBI's job to figure out what he was up to without expecting him to fess up of his own free will. The whole thing about withholding information is just petty sour grapes on the part of the FBI because the brass couldn't get their heads out of their asses in time to listen to their agents and figure out he wasn't planning to start his own airline the flight school lessons before 9-11.

Furthermore, Moussaoui is being planned as nothing more than an effigy to be burned as proxy for Al Qaeda. It's a token measure by the government hoping it'll make the public and relatives of 9-11 victims feel better despite the glaring intelligence discoordination that lead up to those horrible attacks. In fact the only reason the government wants to put him on death row is as a publicity ploy. If he was a member of some obscure group who failed at a 9-11 attempt he'd get Life at most.

But the point is, if Moussaoui can be sentenced to death for withholding information, it lowers civil rights threshold for everyone else. It's opening up a direction that can lead to ridiculous events like Capital Punishment for perjury or something that's straight out of a High School Zero Tolerance Policy nightmare. Not to mention a death sentence for not being a stool pigeon basically eliminates the concept of Burden of Proof on the part of law enforcement.

*buys you a drink*

Plus, if you kill him, he's a martyr. Lock him up in a secure prison somewhere. Sometimes criminals are the most patriotic people on the planet. I'm sure being ass-raped for the rest of his life is more of a punishment than being shot.

Excuse me Opus, but you are not grasping the bottom line here. Convicting Moussaoui and sentencing him to death because he withheld information is not only a bad precedent, it excuses the FBI's incompetence in regards to his case.

Why the fuck does everyone expect a hardcore terrorist to declare his intentions to the public? He's a terrorist and it was the FBI's job to figure out what he was up to without expecting him to fess up of his own free will. The whole thing about withholding information is just petty sour grapes on the part of the FBI because the brass couldn't get their heads out of their asses in time to listen to their agents and figure out he wasn't planning to start his own airline the flight school lessons before 9-11.

Furthermore, Moussaoui is being planned as nothing more than an effigy to be burned as proxy for Al Qaeda. It's a token measure by the government hoping it'll make the public and relatives of 9-11 victims feel better despite the glaring intelligence discoordination that lead up to those horrible attacks. In fact the only reason the government wants to put him on death row is as a publicity ploy. If he was a member of some obscure group who failed at a 9-11 attempt he'd get Life at most.

But the point is, if Moussaoui can be sentenced to death for withholding information, it lowers civil rights threshold for everyone else. It's opening up a direction that can lead to ridiculous events like Capital Punishment for perjury or something that's straight out of a High School Zero Tolerance Policy nightmare. Not to mention a death sentence for not being a stool pigeon basically eliminates the concept of Burden of Proof on the part of law enforcement.
People have been sentenced to death for conspiracy to commit murder before mussaoi. Spouses who hire someone to kill their partner, for example. This is nothing new. It's the same thing on a bigger scale.

He has been found guilty. Now we are in the sentencing part of the trial.

As such, I wonder what is the point of showing all the 9/11 footage. We know what happened, we know what he is guilty is (and it's not of flying a plane into a building) so what good is it to show recording of what happened other than stir emotion?

Hell, I'd like to remind the jury and NS general that conspiring to kill someone is not killing someone. They have different sentencing. That guy didn't fly a plane in the twin towers. He was in jail during that time. So what is the relevance of the footage? He was supposed to fly a plane in the White House. Show footage of THAT building instead, no?
Conspiring to kill someone can still land you on death row. His silence led to the deaths of the people on the planes, pentagon, and twin towers.

Conspiring to kill someone can still land you on death row. His silence led to the deaths of the people on the planes, pentagon, and twin towers.
Yes but what is the point of showing the footage?

For the record, I am against the death penalty but that is another debate entirely. Even for people such as Hussein or Moussaoui (sp?)

Yes but what is the point of showing the footage?

For the record, I am against the death penalty but that is another debate entirely. Even for people such as Hussein or Moussaoui (sp?)
I'm against it as well, though part of me wants it applied in some circumstances along with torture. Kinda like I know it's wrong to rob a bank, but part of me wants to try anyway.

The point of the footage is to remind the court of what his actions led to. It's an aggravating factor that may push the court towards the death penalty.

People have been sentenced to death for conspiracy to commit murder before mussaoi. Spouses who hire someone to kill their partner, for example. This is nothing new. It's the same thing on a bigger scale.

Uh no. Moussaoui confessed his part in the plotting so there really wasn't a trial. But what should bother you is how the government keeps bringing up how his failure to disclose the 9-11 plot to authorities is the primary reason he should be put to death. Again it excuses the FBI's fuckup on the Moussaoui case.

They're just mad because they didn't get to fry the other 19.

I'm against it as well, though part of me wants it applied in some circumstances along with torture. Kinda like I know it's wrong to rob a bank, but part of me wants to try anyway.

The point of the footage is to remind the court of what his actions led to. It's an aggravating factor that may push the court towards the death penalty.
Alright. Then let me ask you this:

Are you alright with the Man's lawyers bringing footage of Abu Graib, US- commited atrocities, poor arab people and other gut-wrenching videos as mitigating factors to try to justify the attacks?

Alright. Then let me ask you this:

Are you alright with the Man's lawyers bringing footage of Abu Graib, US- commited atrocities, poor arab people and other gut-wrenching videos as mitigating factors to try to justify the attacks?
Not if they're unrelated to the 9/11 conspiracy. Only if they happened before the 9/11 plot was hatched and can be shown to have inspired it.

actually if you look at the jurys http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/moussaoui/juryverdictform4.html

verdict form as to why he is eligable for the DP ..they claim he lied to the FBI.

The case they are MAKING in court to fry him is that he kept silent about facts that could have prevented the 9/ 11 attacks......read the trial notes...he pled guilty so its not like they even have to PROVE he knew shit and that by acting on what he knew they could have stopped even one plane etc....
It smells bad . The case was ..and this is a bigger trip considering how important it is to dot the I and cross the T.... handled like a bumbling act , leaving open 9 million avenues for appeal so the gork gets to stay on death row for the next 20 years or until they overturn the case . Unless some kind soul strangles him slowly while the guards play cards .

They're just mad because they didn't get to fry the other 19.

Exactly. Moussaoui is an effigy the US wants to burn in proxy of Al Qaeda.

His guilt has already been established during the trial. He's even admitted to it. Currently we are in the peanalty phase. His guilt has already been proven in a court of law.

Why is this thread attracting so many people who don't seem to know what they're talking about?

alright, i stand corrected. i thought the sentencing was up to the judge though. or is this being treated as a special case?

Exactly. Moussaoui is an effigy the US wants to burn in proxy of Al Qaeda.

Facts.

The jury had to find that Moussaoui was responsible for at least one death in the attacks in order for him to be death-penalty eligible. The case is a precedent-setting one, in that Moussaoui was not convicted of having a direct role in the Sept. 11 attacks or plot.

This is what he admited to . He plead guilty to THIS .

http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/moussaoui/usmouss42205sof.html

Not if they're unrelated to the 9/11 conspiracy. Only if they happened before the 9/11 plot was hatched and can be shown to have inspired it.
mitigating circumstances as to why he felt justified in attacking the US. Every single thing the US has done could be shown to explain why the US is "Teh ebil" and why Moussaoui was justified into attacking the "Great Satan". This is why he conspired to attack, after all.

If one can appeal to emotions, the other side too, no? If nothing else, to desensitize the jury to shocking footage. It should help Moussaoui recieve a lifetime in jail sentence instead of killing him.

My post may or may not relate to this.. but I think the whole 9/11 is a government conspiracy,so that the U.S. could have a reason to go to war with Iraq, to get the oil. Theres a link with a video explaining it all in detail, somewhere on the internet... ill try and dig it up, unless someone here finds it before I do.

My post may or may not relate to this.. but I think the whole 9/11 is a government conspiracy,so that the U.S. could have a reason to go to war with Iraq, to get the oil. Theres a link with a video explaining it all in detail, somewhere on the internet... ill try and dig it up, unless someone here finds it before I do.
Sorry pal, that dumb conspiracy theory has been debunked here many, many times. Bringing it up again is about as irritating as bringing up the "does god exist?" issue again.

Anyway, here's a new conspiracy theory for you. Your mom's a government conspiracy to breed people likely to believe fanciful fake explanations and thus render themselves politically irrelevant to any real debate on matters of foreign policy.

Read a little of the guys confession...take note of this part...

On AUGUST 16 2001 he was arrested in Minnesota by the INS .
he had in his possesion the following ;

two knives
flight manuals for 747-400
a flight simulator computer program
fighting gloves and shin guards
papers refferingg to a hand held GPS system
software that could be used to review 747-400 flight procedures
hand held aviation radio

None of the planes.. BTW... used on 9/11 are planes of this type..but ...ummm what excactly did they think this guy was up to anyway ?
hmmm planes....... cant be up to anything good but with planes....hmmm..
At any rate he didnt slip the net....but they had him and didnt put 2 and 2 toghether......without him just like saying " I am a terrorist and on 9/ 11 ( no one knows if he even knew of the time or target ..but him I guess ) I will kill the infidels....along with etc. "

But he gets to fry as a substitute for the guys who got away .

The crux of the case is " he falsly denied being part of a terrist organization "
and he falsly denied that he was taking pilot training to kill Americans ..instead he said it was for " his own enjoyment " and that after his training he intended to VISIT N. Y. and washington D. C. ...as a ..." tourist "


now read his confession...why didnt the FBI and others come to the conclusion that a plot involving people training to fly airliners was in the works ? WITHOUT him incriminating himself and just based on the friggin evidence they had in front of their face ?????

At no time does he confess to being part of ...nor has he ever been convicted of ..participating in the planning or excecution of the 9 / 11 plot .

maybe it can be a public excecution . First time for everything ...just like this case .


http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/moussaoui/usmouss42205sof5.html

well here's how it started...

Moussaoui faces arraignment Jan. 2 on the conspiracy charges for terrorism, aircraft piracy, destruction of aircraft, use of weapons of mass destruction, murder and destruction of property.

Ramsi Binalshibh, who the FBI says was supposed to be the 20th hijacker, wired $14,000 to Moussaoui from Germany the month before the Sept. 11 attacks. A week later, Moussaoui paid $6,300 in cash to a flight school in Minnesota. Investigators also found telephone numbers for Binalshibh in a notebook belonging to Moussaoui.

Asked whether Moussaoui was supposed to be one of the hijackers, FBI Director Robert Mueller said that ``if you parse the indictment, you will see that Binalshibh attempted four times to come to the United States and was rejected. ... Subsequent to that ... you see Mr. Moussaoui attempting to come to the United States.''

In an initial interview with federal agents, Moussaoui, 33, who is being held in New York, ``attempted to explain his presence in the United States by falsely stating that he was simply interested in learning to fly,'' the indictment stated.

Moussaoui's court-appointed attorney, Donald DuBoulay in New York, said the government ``informed everybody else, except the lawyer of course'' about the indictment.

A senior White House official said President Bush asked Ashcroft several questions about the government's ability to protect intelligence sources during an open trial, then agreed there wasn't a need for a military tribunal at this time.

Former federal prosecutor Lawrence Barcella said federal judges in northern Virginia, home to the CIA, are used to dealing with tricky legal issues that classified information presents. In such cases, the rights of defendants for full disclosure must be balanced against the government's need to protect national secrets.


seems this dopes been a proxy for the ones who got away from the begining .

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,40702,00.html

Fox actually makes it easier to get facts on the case than the other news sources I tried...I find that highly ironic..considering the reputation they get / have .