Preaching to the Choir
Does anybody know how to post a link on this thing? Anyway, here's the article:
Student from Virginia is Convicted of Plotting with Al Qaeda to Assassinate President Bush
I mean, it's a pretty obvious thing to write about, sorry for not searching on the back page for the most obscure thing I could possibly find.
So, an American citizen, Abu Ali, (who is described in the article as "an Arab-American student from Virginia") has been convicted of conspiring to commit acts of terrorism. The article claims that the Justice Department "see[s] the trial as an important test of its ability to use foreign intelligence sources for a criminal case in an American court."
Abu Ali's defense is that his confession was coerced by his captors, who "brutalized" him for forty days. Furthermore, the fact that he was interviewed by the FBI for four days without being 'read his rights' or allowed access to a lawyer showed up in the court documents. Two words: civil liberties. Do you feel your civil liberties being eroded? I feel my civil liberties being eroded.
Here are my questions:
(1) Should the Justice Department be able to use foreign intelligence sources for a criminal case in an American court?
(2) Was the FBI testimony admitted to the case as evidence?
(3) How strong is the evidence that torture is a common practice in Saudi jails?
My preliminary grappling to (1) leads me to believe that (1) and (2) should go together--if FBI testimony may be admitted, foreign intelligence may also be admitted. I do not think, however, that either source should be admissible. What is the precedent for this? I'm sure it's a "national security" issue, but does it date to the Patriot Act? Does it have something to do with military law?
My answer to (3) is that the evidence is very strong; in fact, Le monde diplomatique did an excellent article on that last summer which we should all read as soon as I find a copy of it.
Here's the Washington Post coverage of the trial:
Va. Man Convicted in Plot to Kill Bush
Student from Virginia is Convicted of Plotting with Al Qaeda to Assassinate President Bush
I mean, it's a pretty obvious thing to write about, sorry for not searching on the back page for the most obscure thing I could possibly find.
So, an American citizen, Abu Ali, (who is described in the article as "an Arab-American student from Virginia") has been convicted of conspiring to commit acts of terrorism. The article claims that the Justice Department "see[s] the trial as an important test of its ability to use foreign intelligence sources for a criminal case in an American court."
Abu Ali's defense is that his confession was coerced by his captors, who "brutalized" him for forty days. Furthermore, the fact that he was interviewed by the FBI for four days without being 'read his rights' or allowed access to a lawyer showed up in the court documents. Two words: civil liberties. Do you feel your civil liberties being eroded? I feel my civil liberties being eroded.
Here are my questions:
(1) Should the Justice Department be able to use foreign intelligence sources for a criminal case in an American court?
(2) Was the FBI testimony admitted to the case as evidence?
(3) How strong is the evidence that torture is a common practice in Saudi jails?
My preliminary grappling to (1) leads me to believe that (1) and (2) should go together--if FBI testimony may be admitted, foreign intelligence may also be admitted. I do not think, however, that either source should be admissible. What is the precedent for this? I'm sure it's a "national security" issue, but does it date to the Patriot Act? Does it have something to do with military law?
My answer to (3) is that the evidence is very strong; in fact, Le monde diplomatique did an excellent article on that last summer which we should all read as soon as I find a copy of it.
Here's the Washington Post coverage of the trial:
Va. Man Convicted in Plot to Kill Bush
posted by Lauren B. at 00:39
2 Comments:
<a href="http://myUrl/index.html">My Link text! Helllllooooo people</a>
I think that should work...
After a while you may find how fruitless asking questions like these in a blog can be.
Here is my question: was he really "brutalized" for forty days? I mean, was he counting? It sounds like the sort of thing you'd say if you were trying to get the point across that you were being brutalized for a long time: "Dude, they made me listen to rap, Britney Spears, and hard rock for forty days and nights." To me it sounds like he made it up. By the way, that particular coercion technique I learned from the recent Frontline on Guantanamo/Abu Graib torture stuff.
Post a Comment
<< Home