| Submit your comments on this article |
| Europe |
| German Court Clears Mzoudi of Aiding 9/11 Attack |
| 2004-02-05 |
| REUTERS A Moroccan man accused of helping the September 11 suicide hijackers was acquitted by a German court Thursday. Abdelghani Mzoudi, 31, had been charged in Germany’s second major 9/11 trial with aiding and abetting the murder of several thousand people and being a member of a terrorist organization, the Hamburg cell of al Qaeda. The court pronounced its verdict despite a last-minute bid by lawyers for victims’ families to delay it, citing alleged new evidence linked to the case of accused September 11 conspirator Zacarias Moussaoui in the United States. |
| Posted by:Paul Moloney |
| #15 Re cannibal: The system was simply not prepared for this. Societies sometimes don't have laws for things that never happened before. Germany has no murders? |
| Posted by: Robert Crawford 2004-2-5 9:24:22 PM |
| #14 just for the record, I'm not arguing with TGA's disappointment in the US decision not to provide intel - I certainly can understand that, as I too am disappointed. And TGA's right about the US not being able to throw stones re: absurd jury verdicts. I'm just saying that his scapegoating John Ashcroft/Blame America First explanation avoids all meaningful introspection as to why the Americans felt they could not provide the Germans the intel needed to convict a man everyone wanted convicted! |
| Posted by: B 2004-2-5 6:39:59 PM |
| #13 I accept the fact that Germany had to follow the rule of law. Whatever the US did, or didn't, know about this asshat was either not relevant to the trial / charges or kept close for some reason they felt more important. I'm wondering about the next phase, when we are forced to sink to their level in order to fight them. I believe it's likely to come - and it'll be tough to swallow since many of us won't much like the effect it has on how we will conduct trials -- any more than TGA correctly felt when the US (apparently) wanted a conviction, but chose not to help the German Prosecutor. Regards outside criticism, I hope I'll react with the same civility as TGA... I can hear myself saying something far less tolerant and dignified! What I don't doubt is that it's coming... I don't share TGA's view of non-Wahhabi Islam because the Wahhabists have been very bizzy and very generous for more than 30 years, now. I think their stink is definitely on most now, if not all, of Islam. |
| Posted by: .com 2004-2-5 4:50:11 PM |
| #12 OJ was wealthy, famous, had one of the best trial lawyers of his time, and had several huge screw-ups by the police. Mzoudi didn't have money, wasn't famous, didn't have the best of lawyer around, and didn't have screw-ups by the police except for evidence beingthrown out by the judge. There's a big difference between these two trials. Plus OJ lost all his money. |
| Posted by: Charles 2004-2-5 4:06:20 PM |
| #11 Are we going into that "I know what you did Re cannibal: The system was simply not prepared for this. Societies sometimes don't have laws for things that never happened before. And don't blame us for trials going wrong... just remember a guy called O.J. |
| Posted by: True German Ally 2004-2-5 3:45:45 PM |
| #10 TGA - I think it's absurd and self destructive to blame John Ashcroft. You are right in much of what you say - but stop and think about it - do you really think that the USA WANTED him to get off? Instead of blaming, you should be asking WHY was our government willing to let a known terrorist go free. WHY, considering the consequences, did our government not assist your government?? Obviously, we too would have liked to have seen a conviction, so someone must have had a good reason not to share the intel. Blaming John Ashcroft is just silly when such a deeper question for the German people lies at hand. |
| Posted by: B 2004-2-5 3:40:48 PM |
| #9 The German secretary of the interior is about as appeasing to terrorism as Ashcroft. But your foreign minister has terrorists over for weekend sleep-overs, no? And, seriously, TGA, you guys made a joke out of your own legal system by letting a cannibal off lightly. |
| Posted by: Robert Crawford 2004-2-5 3:33:22 PM |
| #8 B... "sensitive intel????" Are you joking? Where did 9/11 happen, in Berlin or in New York? You want us to convict the people who did it or you want to keep your oh so valuable intel? Do you have any idea how much valuable intel GERMANY shares with U.S. authorities? Do you know anything about the excellent working relationship between the BND and the CIA? Do you know that the CIA can operate in Germany and get the assistance it needs (if it asks nicely, of course). I'd be blunt and say that 20 to 30% of valuable Middle East info the U.S. receives is from German sources, maybe even more in the case of Iran. This has nothing to do with Schroeder. The German secretary of the interior is about as appeasing to terrorism as Ashcroft. And Schroeder may have refused to join the Iraq war but he is firmly committed to the WOT (see Afghanistan). In Mzoudi's case, you have the guys and the info: Keep the info if you wish. But don't expect us to make a joke out of our legal system. We had that already. |
| Posted by: True German Ally 2004-2-5 3:25:06 PM |
| #7 um..that being said, I'm sorry for the German People (and everyone really) that he got off. Only the bad people will be happy with this one. |
| Posted by: B 2004-2-5 3:19:33 PM |
| #6 Sure, don't worry! The thing is that I don't really know what do do or think in this case. If Mzoudi was "innocent" (or rather only marginally involved), then the procedure is ok but then the U.S. should refrain from criticizing us for being to lenient. But if Mzoudi was involved with killing 3000 people then I think there is a limit to secrecy... then please give us at least the minimum to convict him. But I think the Morocco solution was preferred either way. As for Islam... I am not entirely pessimistic. This religion is mired in the 7th century because of the Saudis and the Mullahs. Solve that problem and Islam can evolve. Islam in Tunisia or Morocco is something we can well live with. But if Dubya gets his reelection, my plea would be: Get to the heart of the matter: Saudi Arabia (Iran might get out of it's mess by itself, it has already been a far more progressive country). |
| Posted by: True German Ally 2004-2-5 3:14:31 PM |
| #5 It's all John Ashcrofts fault. Come on. Hey! Nothing against the German people as a whole, but I'm guessing that the people in our government didn't give you the information to the people in your government because enough of our people didn't think enough of YOUR people could be trusted with it. Considering Schroeder's past performance, it would be irresponsible if our Government trusted sensitive intel with him. But I guess it's all John Ashcroft's fault that Schroeder has no claim to demand our trust. Seems to me that you have adopted the true Islamic method of looking for someone else to blame, rather than looking inward to find flaws in need of correction. Maybe you should be wondering what YOUR government has done that the USA feels too uncomfortable to share intel with it, rather than just blaming the US for not feeling comfortable enough to do it. |
| Posted by: B 2004-2-5 3:11:30 PM |
| #4 TGA - Easy, easy! I made no criticism of the German court, nor meant any. You educated me on this situation quite well earlier - and I took it to heart. Why was the US so tight with intel or info? We can only guess. Prolly a mixture of State Dept meddling and intel services realizing that giving away much would compromise something else - which they must've deemed more important. No - your points were, and are, well taken. And no disrespect to the German court or Germany at all. I am just looking ahead to that ugly time when the gloves will have to come off. Fighting wars had evolved to the point that there were rules of war - and sane men (and women) abided by them because the consequences for not doing so were credible and sickening. Regards Islamofascists, it is more than obvious to all of us that this evolution didn't include them -- you can accurately say that Islam didn't evolve at all - it's mired in the 7th century and will never emerge. It deserves no better treatment or better ROE than it gives - and that is my point. We've already seen it. It is truly barbaric and, by Western standards (Order of the Garter, et al), something very hard for the West to do, yet there won't be any choice, at some point in the future. I hope this clarifies my comments, Bro. |
| Posted by: .com 2004-2-5 2:18:22 PM |
| #3 .com, with all respect...but I'd say put 80% of the blame on Ashcroft's obstructionist actions concerning this trial. This Hamburg court WANTED to convict Mzoudi because it smelled Mzoudi's guilt three miles against the wind. But it got next to nothing from the U.S. I have followed this trial very closely and I wondered: Why in the world was the only tangible thing the U.S. authorities finally forked over to Germany Binalshib's exoneration of Mzoudi (I guess Ramzi had more to say?) . Why did the German court try to save the case in extremis by calling Mr. Storyteller Zakeri? In dubio pro reo is a time honored principle. If you want to toss it overboard than make sure that nobody will ever confuse you with somebody who dined in the same restaurant with a person who might know somebody who knows a terrorist. We uphold our legal principles for child rapists and mass murderers... shall we really throw them overboard for turbans with beards? The Romans once said: "Fiat iustitia et pereat mundi". Did you really expect the German court to hand out a conviction based on practically no evidence at all? Evidence that the U.S. intelligence probably has (or they know at least that they haven't got any). But relax: Mzoudi will be kicked to Morocco where you can take care of him. Maybe the U.S. can afford to have Guantanamo. Germany can't. Not Germany. |
| Posted by: True German Ally 2004-2-5 1:55:05 PM |
| #2 I saw all the smiles in that courtroom. Mzoudi sitting there with that sleepy eyed look. |
| Posted by: Lucky 2004-2-5 12:34:32 PM |
| #1 This article is yet another tipping-point for me. [rant] Someday, prolly sooner rather than later, the West will quit quibbling about whether or not an asshat has (or does not have) an Official AlQ Membership Card - good for discounts with most of the Arab world's arms suppliers - and just say: "Are you an Islamozoid asshat who wants to kill people just because they don't buy your Calipahte BS? Yes. Did you do anything to aid in the deaths of these utterly innocent people? Yes. You're forfeit." *bang* QED. Everybody (except the jihadi twinkies and the terminally stupid) feels it in their gut. We all know it's coming. The legalistic and PC-istic restraints, totally self-imposed and typical of the West alone, will eventually yield to a much harder and realistic line of demarcation. This line was clearly marked by Dubya in his (paraphrased) "if you're not for us then you're against us" statement. We will shed the gloves when the majority get this one simple fact: we are the only ones who have any rules - the Izzoids sure as hell don't. Once upon a time, the fact that we won anyway, even with one hand tied behind our backs, was a point of honor. It cost us lives, but we were willing to pay. Now, given the dramatic increases in the lethality of weapons in bizarre conjuction with public expectations that, somehow (magic, I guess), we can fight and win wars with zero casualties, the strain of reality is beginning to show. We have casualties. They're in Iraq, rather than on the Mall in DC or in the Mall in Chevy Chase, but that little nuance is lost on the screamers who demand an idyllic world. Some want to cut and run. Some think they want to pull the trigger themselves. Some think just applying more hi-tech will balance this equation. Some wind themselves up in trivialities, such as the "scandal" of Janet's boobie, so they don't have to face such large issues. The Donks are, as per usual, trying to appeal to Merkins to abandon the hard realities for the easy phantasies of (more magic req'd here) isolationist withdrawal whilst maintaining a multilateralist "feel good" approach so that everyone will love us, again - as if they ever did. I think we have two very serious challenges ahead: 1) Make absolutely damned certain that Dubya is reelected, else our already lost treasure from current efforts is truly lost forever without result - and the inevitable future conflicts will be far far more costly. 2) When we finally abandon our high-ground ethical stand that lets asshats like Mzoudi walk, we don't dither and quibble about where we should then draw the line - we just do what we must do to survive, and do it with every means at our disposal that fit the circumstances. The phools should lean into the strike zone and take one for the team. This will be the time for the real Hard Boyz to step up to the plate. No apologies. [/rant] |
| Posted by: .com 2004-2-5 11:58:41 AM |