home / subscribe / about us / books / archives / search / links / feedback

New Special Double Issue on the War Print Edition of CounterPunch Available Exclusively to Subscribers: The US vs. Iraq: the Thirteen Year War; The Sanctions That Killed; Bombing Iraq Every 3 Days Since the Ceasefire of 1991; What Would Gore Have Done?; The Rise of the Neocons; Israel's Proxy War Plan; Why Did It End So Quickly?; The Coming Occupation; Re-educating Iraqis, American-style; Those Reconstruction Contracts; Media Hawks; Christian Crusaders; Democratic Candidates and the War; Smart Bombs Go Haywire; Inside the Mind of Santorum; Gore Vidal on John Kerry; Thomas Pickering: the Bad Seed. Remember, the CounterPunch website is supported exclusively by subscribers to our newsletter. Our worldwide web audience is soaring, with more than 60,000 visitors a day. This is inspiring news, but the work involved also compels us to remind you more urgently than ever to subscribe and/or make a (tax deductible) donation if you can afford it. If you find our site useful please: Subscribe Now! Or Call Toll Free 1-800-840 3683 or write CounterPunch, PO BOX 228, Petrolia, CA 95558

Recent Stories May 14, 2003 Cindy Corrie A Mother's Day Talk: the Daughter I Can't Hear From Jason Leopold The Pentagon and Hallburton: a Secret November Deal for Iraq's Oil David Lindorff Fighting the Patriot Act: Now It's Alaska John Chuckman Giggling into Chaos Jack McCarthy Twin Towers of Journalism: Racism and Double Standards Wayne Madsen Assassinating JFK Again M. Juniad Alam The Longer View Paul de Rooij The New Hydra's Head: Propagandists and the Selling of the US/Iraq War James Reiss What? Me Worry? Steve Perry More on Saudi Arabia Bombings Website of the Day A Tribute to Ted Joans   May 13, 2003 Saul Landau Clear Channel Fogs the Airwaves Michael Neumann Has Islam Failed? Not by Western Standards Uri Avnery My Meeting with Arafat Steve Perry The Saudi Arabia Bombing Jacob Levich Democracy Comes to Iraq: Kick Their Ass and Grab Their Gas William Lind The Hippo and the Mongoose: a Question of Military Theory The Black Commentator Fraud at the Times: Blaming Blacks for White Folks' Mistakes Stew Albert Asylum Hammond Guthrie An Illogical Reign Website of the Day Sy Hersh: War and Intelligence   May 12, 2003 Chris Floyd Bush, Bin Laden, Bechtel, and Baghdad Dave Lindorff America's Dirty Bombs Sam Hamod and Elaine Cassel Resisting the Bush Administration's War on Liberty Uzi Benziman Sharon and Sons, Inc. Jason Leopold The Decline and Fall of Thomas White Rich Procter George Jumps the Shark Federico Moscogiuri Going to Israel? Sign or Else Steve Perry Bush's War Web Log 5/12 Book of the Day Fooling Marty Peretz Website of the Day T-Shirts to Protest In   May 10 / 11, 2003 Alexander Cockburn Rosenthal Faces the Music in Key Med Marijuana Case JoAnn Wypijewski Labor in the Dawn of Empire Annie C. Higgins The Last Time I Saw Mus'ab Ron Jacobs The Devil in New England William Mandel One on One with Sen. Joe McCarthy Jason Leopold Halliburton Still Flouts the Law as It Profits from Terror Patrick Cockburn The Iraqi Quagmire Larry Magnuson William Bennett: Next Viceroy of Iraq? Sasan Fayazmanesh The Good Terrorists? Anthony Gancarski Chalabi: Drowning in Ba'ath-water? Steven Sherman A Letter to My European Friends Khaled El-Bizri Mr. Bush Comes to Santa Clara Bruce Jackson How Fear Curdles the Soul Adam Engel Flag in the Rain Poets Basement Reiss, Guthrie, Hamod & Albert Steve Perry Bush's War Web Log 5/10 Website of the Weekend Killing Again   May 9, 2003 Rahul Mahajan Don't Lift the Sanctions Yet Wayne Madsen When Lying Pays Off: Neo-Con Fabricators Chris Floyd The Karamazov Question Don Monkerud The Great Christian Schism: War or Peace? Sam Hamod and Elaine Cassel Drunk on Power: Bush, Power and the Pathology of the Dry Drunk Hammond Guthrie Bombastic Promise Keeping Steve Perry Bush's War Web Log 5/09   May 8, 2003 Julie Hilden When It's a Crime to Visit Your Son Mickey Z. Partisan Protests? Mark Zepezauer Evil is as Evil Does David Lindorff The Coming Senior Revolution Abu Spinoza The Detention of Dr. Huda Ammash Ben Tripp The Other "F" Word Norman Madarasz God in the Service of the Security State: a Dispatch from Brazil Stew Albert Pushovers Steve Perry Bush's War Web Log 5/08 Website of the Day Department of Sexual Security   May 7, 2003 Alexander Cockburn Quoting Under the Influence: Breasts, Martinis, Hitchens David Krieger Winning the War; Alienating the World Sen. Robert Byrd Bush's Troubling Speech Bruce Jackson Bill Kunstler's Last Big Speech Steve Perry Bush's War Web Log 5/07 Website of the Day The Truth About Bush's Military Records   May 6, 2003 Paul de Rooij An Activist in the Trenches: an Interview with Gretta Duisenberg Anthony Gancarski Money to Burn: in Defense of Bill Bennett John Stanton Bush's War on Jesus Sam Hamod W. Bush: the Little Snot, the Little Bully Robert Fisk Bush Says the War is Over: Tell It to the Shi'a Kathleen Christison A Roadmap to Nowhere Steve Perry Bush's War Web Log 5/06   May 5, 2003 Gary Leupp Phase Two: Syria and Iran Jorge Mariscal The Militarization of US Culture Ishmael Reed A Family Values Man Tarif Abboushi Sharon's Confidence: Bush Won't Come to Shove on Roadmap Leila Matsui Regime Change Begins at Home...Literally Steve Perry Bush's Wars Sam Smith Coalition of the Shilling   May 3, 2003 Ron Jacobs Tears of Rage: Remembering May 1970 Elaine Cassel William Bennett, a Freudian Perspective Sam Hamod Understanding the Shi'a of Lebanon Scott Fleming Getting Shot on the Oakland Docks Mickey Z. Cuba and Puerto Rico: 100 Years of Terror William S. Lind Don't Take Col. John Boyd's Name in Vain Dr. Bruce Blair The New Nuclear Terrorism Threat Joanne Mariner Cluster Bombs Over Iraq Anthony Gancarski Hot Fun in the Summertime Ilian Pappe Searching Jenin William MacDougall America's Kids Are All Right: Pre-Teen Conservative Commentators Seth Sandronsky Incarcerated and Invisible Rich Procter Over Our Dead Bodies Lenni Brenner How Bob Dylan Found His Voice Adam Engel American Bulk Poets' Basement Reiss, Guthrie, Albert Steve Perry Bush's War Web Log 5/03   May 2, 2003 Caoimhe Butterly Crowd Control American-style Neve Gordon US: No Right to Know About the Disappeared John Chuckman Tom Friedman's Life as a Pet Hamster Bradley Burston Betting on Abu-Mazen...To Lose Harvey Wasserman Bush's Military Defeat John Troyer Question Those Writing History Saul Landau The Cuba Conundrum Steve Perry Bush's War Web Log 5/02 Website of the Day Moussaoui's Quiz   May 1, 2003 Jeffrey St. Clair Santorum: That's Latin for Asshole Iain Boal A May Day Message to the FCC: "We Are Many; They are Few" Diana Johnstone About Cuba Sam Hamod Killings at Al Fallujah, City of Mosques Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity Intelligence Fiasco Lee Sustar Greed Air: Airline Workers Agree to Pay Cuts, While Bosses Stuff Their Pockets Peter Linebaugh May Day at Kut and Kienthal Stew Albert Straight Shooters Steve Perry Bush's War Web Log 5/01 Website of the Day South Bay Mobilization   April 30, 2003 Ashley Smith Under Uncle Sam's Thumb: a History of Washington's Occupations Steve Perry Bush's War Web Log 4/30 Gary Leupp Shooting Schoolboys: Preliminary Thoughts on the Fallujah Massacre Robert Jensen Fighting Alienation in the USA Wayne Madsen The Four Horsemen of Propaganda Ahmad Faruqui Bush's Strategic Myopia About the Middle East Gabriel Kolko Iraq, the US and the End of the European Coalition Adolfo Perez Esquivel A Nobel Laureat's Letter to Bush: "You Talk of Freedom; You Detest Freedom"   April 29, 2003 Gary Leupp Disorder and Opportunity: the Results of the Iraq War Uri Avnery Don't Envy Abu-Mazen Anthony Gancarski Brush with the Law Mickey Z. POWs: Then and Now CounterPunch Wire How to Spin Israel on the Hill: Internal Lobbying Documents Robert Fisk Did the US Murder Journalists? Chris Floyd Bush Telegraphs His Punches on Syria Wayne Madsen About Those Iraqi Intelligence Documents Wallace Gagne Pilgrimage or Demolition Derby? Eliot Katz Playing Catch with Cracked Globes Steve Perry Bush's War Web Log 4/29     Hot Stories Elaine Cassel Civil Liberties Watch Michel Guerrin Embedded Photographer Says: "I Saw Marines Kill Civilians" Uzma Aslam Khan The Unbearably Grim Aftermath of War: What America Says Does Not Go Paul de Rooij Arrogant Propaganda Gore Vidal The Erosion of the American Dream Francis Boyle Impeach Bush: A Draft Resolution Click Here for More Stories.   Subscribe Online Search CounterPunch

May 15, 2003 Can Moussaoui Get a Fair Trial? How Much Access to the Detainees at Camp X-Ray is His Defense Entitled to? By JULIE HILDEN On Wednesday, May 7, U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema held a closed hearing to determine whether suspected terrorist Zacarias Moussaoui will be allowed to interview an alleged Al Qaeda member, who is currently being held by the U.S. government, to help build his defense. (Previously, in March, Judge Brinkema had allowed Moussaoui access to another detained alleged Al Qaeda member.) The government has suggested that, rather than allowing Moussaoui access to such prisoners, it should instead be allowed to provide a written summary of the prisoner's statements to Moussaoui. It has argued that because Moussaoui is also an Al Qaeda member, national security may be jeopardized if he is allowed to communicate directly with other members of the terrorist group. However, Moussaoui's "standby" attorneys have suggested that such written statements are far from sufficient: "There is no precedent for denying a defendant facing the death penalty access to such witnesses." As their comments suggest, especially in a death penalty case, there are very strong reasons to allow the defendant access to all possible means of defense. Certainly, this country has executed enough innocent people in the past to be wary of cutting off a defendant's right to defend himself. Who is correct--the government, or Moussaoui and his standby attorneys? Before answering the question, it's helpful to look at the ground rules that govern defendants' ability to call witnesses in a federal criminal trial. Why Defendants Often Don't Call Their Own Witnesses In the First Place First, it's important to remember that many defendants usually don't put on their own case at all. Rather, their lawyers cross examine the government's witnesses, and argue in their opening summation that the government has not met its burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Why don't defendants put on their own case? Sometimes public defenders' lack of resources are to blame: The defendant's overburdened attorney doesn't have the time to conduct a full investigation. But the real reason is usually related to the Fifth Amendment. Defendants with prior criminal records often invoke their Fifth Amendment right not to testify. Once they've made that choice, putting on other witnesses on their behalf has a severe cost for them. It will inevitably raise this question in the jury's mind: "So why doesn't the defendant himself just tell us what happened?" Although jurors know the defendant has a right not to take the stand, they also often wonder why he doesn't. Putting on an elaborate defense only make the defendant's own silence more conspicuous. Putting on such a defense also means the attorney can no longer implicitly suggest the defendant might have taken the Fifth on principle, by suggesting the burden is on the government, not the defendant. The idea is that the defendant isn't speaking because he doesn't have to; the government is the one that has to convince the jury. But putting on a defense case without the defendant's own testimony suggests, instead, that the defendant prefers to have others make his case for him, because he fears trying to tell his own story. That, then, is the situation in the typical case in which the defendant takes the Fifth. But what about the cases where the defendant and his attorneys do decide to put on their own defense? Here is where obstacles can arise. If a Defendant Does Try to Put on A Defense, He May Run Into Trouble First, witnesses who fear they may incriminate themselves with their testimony may refuse to speak to the defendant or his attorneys. Even if they are subpoenaed to give a deposition, they may take the Fifth. If they do, a defendant has little recourse. That's because it is the prosecutor, not the defendant, who has the power to offer witnesses immunity and compel them to speak--meaning that the prosecution, in effect, has access to more testimony than does the defense. In a very rare circumstance, a defendant might convince a judge that his Sixth Amendment right to a fair trial requires the judge's granting immunity to the witness, and compelling him or her to speak, but this is unlikely. Meanwhile, if the defendant is poor, he will face additional obstacles. If he can't pay witness fees, he can get the judge to subpoena witnesses anyway, but only if their testimony is found by the judge to be necessary "for an adequate defense." Moreover, even if a subpoena for a deposition or trial appearance is issued, witnesses can always move to quash it. That brings us to Moussaoui, who appears to be in an unusual situation for a defendant. His verbosity so far seems to make it very likely that he will take the stand in his own defense, and it seems the witnesses whom he has wanted to speak to, probably actually want to speak with him--rather than taking the Fifth or moving to quash the subpoena. Instead, it is the government that is the major obstacle to his getting access to witnesses. The Problem with the Written Statement Option The government's national security concern, in this case, might be a plausible one. Its fear may be that Moussaoui would be a message-carrier among Al Qaeda prisoners--perhaps filling them on what the government does, and does not, know about Al Qaeda. There is every reason to think the angry Moussaoui would do this if he could--whether he is guilty, or simply furious at being wrongly accused. Moreover, if Moussaoui went so far as to aid in terrorism, there would be little the government could do to penalize him further. It apparently expects to win the death penalty in this case. And if he is indeed guilty, then Moussaoui, too, may expect this too, and thus see no reason not to wreak havoc before he is executed. (This "nothing to lose" phenomenon is yet another problem with the death penalty.) These concerns lead to the question of whether there might be a solution that balances the government's national security worries against Moussaoui's fair trial rights. The government's "written statement" option seems a weak one, but it's hard to propose another, because the balance is very difficult to strike. Written statements are a poor alternative to actual interviews. In-person interviews encourage witness candor. They also allow subtle follow-ups and allow the questioner to tailor questions based on the answers he's gotten so far. And crucially, they allow the defendant and his attorneys to assess how useful the witness would be if actually called to the stand at trial. Without the opportunity to observe demeanor and assess credibility, the defense's position is weakened. Before calling a witness, it's best to know not only what he will say, but how he will say it. Under ordinary circumstances, no attorney worth his or her salt would accept a written statement in exchange for an in-person interview. A trial is a human drama, not a paper battle. The Problem Is Particularly Acute Since Moussaoui Is Representing Himself Another alternative--having defense attorneys, not Moussaoui, do the interview, and restricting what they can convey to him based on security rules--is excluded here. The case is an unusual one, because Moussaoui is representing himself--with access to judge-appointed "standby counsel." Thus, the option of allowing Moussaoui's lawyers--but not Moussaoui himself--access to potential witnesses who might disclose sensitive information is not as feasible as it otherwise would be. In a sense, he is his own lawyer. Of course, giving attorneys access to information that they cannot communicate to their clients is hardly an ideal solution anyway. But it's also not unheard of. For example, if an attorney, through no fault of his own, sees something he shouldn't--say, inadvertently produced information from the other side--he might have an ethical duty to keep it to himself. Typically, though, a criminal defendant ought to be allowed to see all the evidence that his attorney can. An Ex Parte Proceeding May Be the Best Solution Another option might be to have the interview presided over by the judge, with prosecutors excluded (the legal term for such a one-sided proceeding is "ex parte"). It seems unlikely that even Moussaoui would plot in front of Judge Brinkema. This solution would not be completely unusual: Judges typically have experience in conducting ex parte proceedings, at least in civil cases where it is possible, for instance, to get an ex parte temporary restraining issue under some circumstances. They are also very used to overseeing, and controlling, witness testimony to make sure that it hews to external constraints, such as the rules of evidence--often, for instance, shutting down hearsay before it can be voiced. This option would seem to be fair to both sides. Prosecutors could fill the judge in beforehand on their national security fears, so she could shut proceedings down if Moussaoui was attempting to misuse them. Meanwhile, Moussaoui would be able to have the benefit of an in-person interview of the Al Qaeda prisoner, and could also keep his defense strategy secret from the prosecution until trial begins, as he's entitled to do. I'm sure Judge Brinkema's resolution of the dispute over access to the Al Qaeda witness will depend at least in part on the evidence on the magnitude and plausibility of the national security threat, and rightly so. But whatever approach she takes, my hope is that she offers Moussaoui greater due process, and a fairer trial, than the government's "written statement" would allow. With not only the U.S., but the world watching, it's important that Moussaoui's right to a fair trial is preserved insofar as that is possible. Julie Hilden practiced First Amendment law at the D.C. law firm of Williams & Connolly from 1996-99. Currently a freelance writer, she published a memoir, The Bad Daughter, in 1998. Her forthcoming novel Three will be published in the U.S. in August 2003 by Plume Books, in the U.K. by Bantam, and in French translation by Actes Sud. This column originally appeared on Findlaw's Writ. She can be reached at: julhil@aol.com. Julie's new website is a lot of fun. Have a look. Today's Features Cindy Corrie A Mother's Day Talk: the Daughter I Can't Hear From Jason Leopold The Pentagon and Hallburton: a Secret November Deal for Iraq's Oil David Lindorff Fighting the Patriot Act: Now It's Alaska John Chuckman Giggling into Chaos Jack McCarthy Twin Towers of Journalism: Racism and Double Standards Wayne Madsen Assassinating JFK Again M. Juniad Alam The Longer View Paul de Rooij The New Hydra's Head: Propagandists and the Selling of the US/Iraq War James Reiss What? Me Worry? Steve Perry More on Saudi Arabia Bombings     Keep CounterPunch Alive: Make a Tax-Deductible Donation Today Online! home / subscribe / about us / books / archives / search / links /