He's been held in limbo for awhile now. He can't interview witnesses, though his prosecutors can. He can't see his attorney at will. Not only that, but the government made a slight omission that they've had more access to witnesses than they let on previously.


http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/05/14/moussaoui/index.html



Questions for debate:

1.)Are the scales of justice "tipped" too far towards the government in this case?

2.)Can he get a fair trial?

3.)Is it fair that the prosecution in hand with interrogators and suggested lines of discussion and Moussaoui can not?

1.)Are the scales of justice "tipped" too far towards the government in this case?

To tell you the truth i dont really know in this matter

2.)Can he get a fair trial?

Really the questions is not can he get one but does he deserve a fair trial. Why do you think we dont give him a fair trial its because he has done something to our nation on our soil that has hurt us.

3.)Is it fair that the prosecution in hand with interrogators and suggested lines of discussion and Moussaoui can not?

Also what gives him the right to make discussion. All he is going to say is "I didnt do it". What makes you think he is going to talk, the man would rather die.

Perhaps that is his line of defense, but that is irrelevant. The man wants to have key Al-Qaeda leaders interviewed because they could state for the record whether or not he truly was the 20th hijacker. They are witnesses to his guilt/innocense and could provide an alibi or seal his fate. Our legal system is one in which the accused can call witnesses. Our government has stated that he can't interview the men who might have knowledge that could excuse or convict him. Since when has then been standard legal operating procedure? If the man just wanted to die, he would not call witnesses, and he would not be seeking out these men.






Why don't I think he's being given a fair trial? Let's see-(1)Unlike anyone else who is accused in our legal system, he has been denied the ability to interview witnesses(i.e.-plan for his defense; (2)His legal team can't meet with him confidentially; (3)the prosecution has confessed to having greater access to the witesses than the defense(as admitted through my quote)
Does this sound fair to you? Remember, this man is innocent until he's proven guilty. But from the looks of it, the scales of justice are going to be tipped so that he will be declared guilty no matter what.

What if his witnesses are outside contacts that have contacts in Iraq. This could lead to even more dangerous situations for the american troops in Iraq. Ok is he american, i dont think so, so why does the rule innocent until proven guilty apply to him. Ok also he did go to an engineering college in one of the Carolina's and at that school was taught the structure of the TWIN TOWERS. If he had that information dont you think he would tell his fellow Al Qaeda.