Khalid Sheikh Mohammed on Trial in NY?

[rubberneck]

Originally Posted by Richard

I agree it's confusing - and I admit it may seem even more confusing to those like us who are not privy to all that went on, is going on, and will go on - but the difference in who gets dealt with by whom may be due to a case-by-case consideration of the status of each detainee when the charges being brought against them were committed.

Richard

Again if the tribunals are tailored to pass constitutional scrutiny (apparently the current administration feels they are) and they uphold our values by allowing the accused the chance to defend themselves in a fair trail, than why the need to weigh them on a case by case basis? Either the tribunals are a valid means by which to try war criminals or they aren't.

The only logical conclusion I can draw is that this is being only done to show the world that we value the rule of law above all else. If that is the driving force behind the decision to try KSM in NYC than the question then becomes is that message worth whatever pandora's box these trials are sure to open. I am not so sure that they are but reasonable people are free to disagree with that notion. I just hate like hell that it seems like this current administration is more worried about being perceived the right way than necessarily doing the right thing. Form should always follow function.

[incarcerated]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...665832850.html

The KSM Trial Will Be an Intelligence Bonanza for al Qaeda

The government will have to choose between vigorous prosecution and revealing classified sources and methods.
OPINION
NOVEMBER 15, 2009, 7:47 P.M. ET
By JOHN YOO
'This is a prosecutorial decision as well as a national security decision," President Barack Obama said last week about the attorney general's announcement that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and other al Qaeda operatives will be put on trial in New York City federal court.

No, it is not. It is a presidential decision—one about the hard, ever-present trade-off between civil liberties and national security.

Trying KSM in civilian court will be an intelligence bonanza for al Qaeda and the hostile nations that will view the U.S. intelligence methods and sources that such a trial will reveal. The proceedings will tie up judges for years on issues best left to the president and Congress.

Whether a jury ultimately convicts KSM and his fellows, or sentences them to death, is beside the point. The treatment of the 9/11 attacks as a criminal matter rather than as an act of war will cripple American efforts to fight terrorism. It is in effect a declaration that this nation is no longer at war.

KSM is the self-proclaimed mastermind of the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon—and a "terrorist entrepreneur," according to the 9/11 Commission report. He was the brains behind a succession of operations against the U.S., including the 1996 "Bojinka plot" to crash jetliners into American cities. Together with Osama bin Laden, he selected the 9/11 terrorists, arranged their financing and training, and ran the whole operation from abroad.

After the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan KSM eventually became bin Laden's operations chief. American and Pakistani intelligence forces captured him on March 1, 2003, in Rawalpindi, Pakistan.

Now, however, KSM and his co-defendants will enjoy the benefits and rights that the Constitution accords to citizens and resident aliens—including the right to demand that the government produce in open court all of the information that it has on them, and how it got it.

Prosecutors will be forced to reveal U.S. intelligence on KSM, the methods and sources for acquiring its information, and his relationships to fellow al Qaeda operatives. The information will enable al Qaeda to drop plans and personnel whose cover is blown. It will enable it to detect our means of intelligence-gathering, and to push forward into areas we know nothing about.

This is not hypothetical, as former federal prosecutor Andrew McCarthy has explained. During the 1993 World Trade Center bombing trial of Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman (aka the "blind Sheikh"), standard criminal trial rules required the government to turn over to the defendants a list of 200 possible co-conspirators.

In essence, this list was a sketch of American intelligence on al Qaeda. According to Mr. McCarthy, who tried the case, it was delivered to bin Laden in Sudan on a silver platter within days of its production as a court exhibit.

Bin Laden, who was on the list, could immediately see who was compromised. He also could start figuring out how American intelligence had learned its information and anticipate what our future moves were likely to be.

Even more harmful to our national security will be the effect a civilian trial of KSM will have on the future conduct of intelligence officers and military personnel. Will they have to read al Qaeda terrorists their Miranda rights? Will they have to secure the "crime scene" under battlefield conditions? Will they have to take statements from nearby "witnesses"? Will they have to gather evidence and secure its chain of custody for transport all the way back to New York? All of this while intelligence officers and soldiers operate in a war zone, trying to stay alive, and working to complete their mission and get out without casualties.

The Obama administration has rejected the tool designed to solve this tension between civilian trials and the demands of intelligence and military operations. In 2001, President George W. Bush established military commissions, which have a long history that includes World War II, the Civil War and the Revolutionary War. The lawyers in the Bush administration—I was one—understood that military commissions could guarantee a fair trial while protecting national security secrets from excessive exposure.

The Supreme Court has upheld the use of commissions for war crimes. The procedures for these commissions received the approval of Congress in 2006 and 2009.

Stranger yet, the Obama administration declared last week that it would use these military commissions to try five other al Qaeda operatives held at Guantanamo Bay, including Abu Rahim al-Nashiri, the alleged planner of the 2000 bombing of the USS Cole in Yemen. It should make no difference that this second group attacked a military target overseas. If anything, the deliberate attack on purely civilian targets in New York City represents the greater war crime.

For a preview of the KSM trial, look at what happened in the case of Zacarias Moussaoui, the so-called 20th hijacker who was arrested in the U.S. just before 9/11. His trial never made it to a jury. Moussaoui's lawyers tied the court up in knots.

All they had to do was demand that the government hand over all its intelligence on him. The case became a four-year circus, giving Moussaoui a platform to air his anti-American tirades. The only reason the trial ended was because, at the last minute, Moussaoui decided to plead guilty. That plea relieved the government of the choice between allowing a fishing expedition into its intelligence files or dismissing the charges.

KSM's lawyers will not save the government from itself. Instead they will press hard to reveal intelligence secrets in open court. Our intelligence agents and soldiers will be the ones to suffer.

Mr. Yoo is a law professor at the University of California, Berkeley. He was an official in the Justice Department from 2001-03 and is a visiting scholar at the American Enterprise Institute.

[Richard]

I know that I am not an attorney, but I would think Mr Yoo, along with the many jurists and columnists commenting on the pending trials of KSM et al, would either consider or offer to the public some germaine facts relevant to the situation - such as CLASSIFIED INFORMATION PROCEDURES ACT as cited in Appendix to Title 18 of the US Code:

§ 4. Discovery of classified information by defendants

The court, upon a sufficient showing, may authorize the United States to delete specified items of classified information from documents to be made available to the defendant through discovery under the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, to substitute a summary of the information for such classified documents, or to substitute a statement admitting relevant facts that the classified information would tend to prove. The court may permit the United States to make a request for such authorization in the form of a written statement to be inspected by the court alone. If the court enters an order granting relief following such an ex parte showing, the entire text of the statement of the United States shall be sealed and preserved in the records of the court to be made available to the appellate court in the event of an appeal.

§ 6. Procedure for cases involving classified information

(a) Motion for Hearing.— Within the time specified by the court for the filing of a motion under this section, the United States may request the court to conduct a hearing to make all determinations concerning the use, relevance, or admissibility of classified information that would otherwise be made during the trial or pretrial proceeding. Upon such a request, the court shall conduct such a hearing. Any hearing held pursuant to this subsection (or any portion of such hearing specified in the request of the Attorney General) shall be held in camera if the Attorney General certifies to the court in such petition that a public proceeding may result in the disclosure of classified information. As to each item of classified information, the court shall set forth in writing the basis for its determination. Where the United States’ motion under this subsection is filed prior to the trial or pretrial proceeding, the court shall rule prior to the commencement of the relevant proceeding.
(b) Notice.—
(1) Before any hearing is conducted pursuant to a request by the United States under subsection (a), the United States shall provide the defendant with notice of the classified information that is at issue. Such notice shall identify the specific classified information at issue whenever that information previously has been made available to the defendant by the United States. When the United States has not previously made the information available to the defendant in connection with the case, the information may be described by generic category, in such forms as the court may approve, rather than by identification of the specific information of concern to the United States.
(2) Whenever the United States requests a hearing under subsection (a), the court, upon request of the defendant, may order the United States to provide the defendant, prior to trial, such details as to the portion of the indictment or information at issue in the hearing as are needed to give the defendant fair notice to prepare for the hearing.
(c) Alternative Procedure for Disclosure of Classified Information.—
(1) Upon any determination by the court authorizing the disclosure of specific classified information under the procedures established by this section, the United States may move that, in lieu of the disclosure of such specific classified information, the court order—
(A) the substitution for such classified information of a statement admitting relevant facts that the specific classified information would tend to prove; or
(B) the substitution for such classified information of a summary of the specific classified information.
The court shall grant such a motion of the United States if it finds that the statement or summary will provide the defendant with substantially the same ability to make his defense as would disclosure of the specific classified information. The court shall hold a hearing on any motion under this section. Any such hearing shall be held in camera at the request of the Attorney General.
(2) The United States may, in connection with a motion under paragraph (1), submit to the court an affidavit of the Attorney General certifying that disclosure of classified information would cause identifiable damage to the national security of the United States and explaining the basis for the classification of such information. If so requested by the United States, the court shall examine such affidavit in camera and ex parte.
(d) Sealing of Records of In Camera Hearings.— If at the close of an in camera hearing under this Act (or any portion of a hearing under this Act that is held in camera) the court determines that the classified information at issue may not be disclosed or elicited at the trial or pretrial proceeding, the record of such in camera hearing shall be sealed and preserved by the court for use in the event of an appeal. The defendant may seek reconsideration of the court’s determination prior to or during trial.
(e) Prohibition on Disclosure of Classified Information by Defendant, Relief for Defendant When United States Opposes Disclosure.—
(1) Whenever the court denies a motion by the United States that it issue an order under subsection (c) and the United States files with the court an affidavit of the Attorney General objecting to disclosure of the classified information at issue, the court shall order that the defendant not disclose or cause the disclosure of such information.
(2) Whenever a defendant is prevented by an order under paragraph (1) from disclosing or causing the disclosure of classified information, the court shall dismiss the indictment or information; except that, when the court determines that the interests of justice would not be served by dismissal of the indictment or information, the court shall order such other action, in lieu of dismissing the indictment or information, as the court determines is appropriate. Such action may include, but need not be limited to—
(A) dismissing specified counts of the indictment or information;
(B) finding against the United States on any issue as to which the excluded classified information relates; or
(C) striking or precluding all or part of the testimony of a witness.
An order under this paragraph shall not take effect until the court has afforded the United States an opportunity to appeal such order under section 7, and thereafter to withdraw its objection to the disclosure of the classified information at issue.
(f) Reciprocity.— Whenever the court determines pursuant to subsection (a) that classified information may be disclosed in connection with a trial or pretrial proceeding, the court shall, unless the interests of fairness do not so require, order the United States to provide the defendant with the information it expects to use to rebut the classified information. The court may place the United States under a continuing duty to disclose such rebuttal information. If the United States fails to comply with its obligation under this subsection, the court may exclude any evidence not made the subject of a required disclosure and may prohibit the examination by the United States of any witness with respect to such information.

There is more and it can all be found here:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/ht...18_10_sq3.html

By not mentioning these procedures, I have to wonder at either the efficacy of the commentators or their political motives for not doing so.

Richard's jaded $.02

[Sigaba]

Originally Posted by Richard

I know that I am not an attorney, but I would think Mr Yoo, along with the many jurists and columnists commenting on the pending trials of KSM et al, would either consider or offer to the public some germaine facts relevant to the situation....

<<SNIP>>

By not mentioning these procedures, I have to wonder at either the efficacy of the commentators or their political motives for not doing so.

Mr. Yoo certainly has a professional and political interest in the decision to try KSM in a civil court given the fact that he argued so vigorously (if not efficaciously) for military tribunals.

[Dozer523]

Originally Posted by incarcerated

NOVEMBER 15, 2009, 7:47 P.M. ET
By JOHN YOO
'This is a prosecutorial decision as well as a national security decision," President Barack Obama said last week about the attorney general's announcement that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and other al Qaeda operatives will be put on trial in New York City federal court. . . .

. . . Mr. Yoo is a law professor at the University of California, Berkeley. He was an official in the Justice Department from 2001-03 and is a visiting scholar at the American Enterprise Institute.

John Yoo ? hmmmmm Now why does that name sound familiar? do you mean this John Yoo?

"TUESDAY, MAR 10, 2009 03:56 PDT
John Yoo is sorry for nothing Sneering with contempt, the unrepentant Bush attorney has challenged "Obama's antiwar base" to read his infamous memos closely. So I did.
BY GARY KAMIYA
You have to give John Yoo credit for chutzpah. The disgraced author of the so-called torture memo was back in the news last week, when the Obama administration released seven more secret opinions, all but one written in whole or in part by Yoo and fellow Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) lawyer Jay Bybee, arguing that the Bush administration had the right to override the Constitution as long as it claimed to be fighting a "war on terror." Professor Yoo, who I am embarrassed to say holds a tenured position at the law school of my alma mater, the University of California at Berkeley,(Is that amazing?) was already known as the official who provided a legal fig leaf behind which the Bush administration tortured inmates at Guantánamo and Abu Ghraib. His legal misdeeds are widely known, but now they have been exposed chapter and verse. Among the new memos is one written in 2001, in which Yoo and co-author Robert J. Delahunty advised the U.S. that the Posse Comitatus Act, which forbids the Army to be used for law enforcement, and the Fourth Amendment, which prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures, do not apply to domestic military operations undertaken during a "war on terror."

In other words, bye-bye, Bill of Rights. This is a prescription for a police state, where not just the police but the Army can kick your door down without a warrant or probable cause, as long as the president says he's fighting "terror." If Barack Obama had solicited such an opinion from an obliging Justice Department lawyer because he wanted to sic the U.S. Army on a group of domestic terrorists, the right would be screaming about jackbooted federal thugs descending from black helicopters to haul off American citizens. Strangely, no conservatives have taken to the streets to warn us of the Big Government danger posed by this radical doctrine. Perhaps they are too busy mobilizing against the unspeakable socialist menace represented by Obama's 3 percent increase in taxes on millionaires.
Cite: http://www.salon.com/opinion/kamiya/...3/10/john_yoo/

[Shar]

I am an attorney, and not even a famous one like Mr. Yoo or a particularly noteworthy one and even I know that while the Classified Information Procedures Act may have some bearing on things during the trial there is still a need to follow the entirety of the Federal Rules of Procedure - be they Civil or Criminal. Things like chain of evidence, Miranda, etc are all part and parcel of what will hang the prosecution. Just because they are guilty doesn't mean they go to jail.

You may be able to discredit Mr. Yoo for some of his words based on his political leanings, but the basics of what he's saying are still germane. And last time I checked, the WSJ wasn't some crazy conservative rag.

[JAGO]

Originally Posted by Shar

.... But that's just what it is - jurisdiction. A court must have jurisdiction to hear a case. In this instance how does the Southern District of NY have legal and proper jurisdiction over this person? Anyone? It's only because we say so, it isn't because it went through any proper channels of extradition. The judge must shut his eyes to it. In a military tribunal, that is not necessary for a war criminal in an act of war. There will be some nutty rewriting of rules for this guy to stand in this courtroom. This isn't my opinion, this is Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 101.

As to Sigaba's contention that these issues are not novel - I have to disagree and state that I do not believe that terrorists acting on foreign soils against third party countries without their own clear nationalities are the same as international shipping issues. Again, the closest we've come to exploring anything close to this is Nuremburg and Israel's trial of Eichmann where they played seriously fast and loose.

Some quick thoughts: Our UCMJ under Title 10 US code allows for jurisdiction over the person - regardless of the location. So if a military member in space smoked dope, a Courts-martial can try the case simply because of the person's status as subject to UCMJ.

The civilian US courts involve a different analysis. Is there jurisdiction (power) to hear the case? That is does the court exercise power over the crime charged? The second aspect is one of location (called venue). There are several courts with the same power to hear the case, but in what location. Some offenses transpire through the territory of several courts. Jurisdiction over the crime and the person with proper venue perfect the case and once the trial starts, jeopary attaches.

I offer the observation that members of AQ are not members of a nation's military but rather stateless w/ respect to Army in the conduct of their actions. I would have preferred they be classified as "illegal combatants" (as distinguished from a Levy en masse) and then as illegal combatants they can be charged with their misdeeds under the law of war. Pursuant to our treaty obligations and the law of war, the US military has jurisdiction and them and the procedures set out in Title 10 US Code suppl by the military commissions act, allow for the military to have jurisdiction over those acts committed in violation of the law of war.

"Legal combatants" (military fighting in uniform and obeying the law of war) and those who rise up are not tried, but rather held as PW (in some cases the status is retained personnel and others civilian internes) until hostilities cease. Remember those WWII moves and Hogans Heroes? Held for the duration but not punished for crimes.


When this administration decided to handle the "illegal combatants" as criminals, in order to try and hopefully punish, we come down to two issues - jurisdiction and venue. Under Title 18 US Code, does the US have jurisdiction, that is the power to try the offense? The fact that over 3,000 persons were unlawfully killed with malice aforthought and certain persons conspired to commit murder, the U.S. obviously has the jurisdiction to adjudge the case. Nations have the power to defend their nationals. Likewise, the acts took place within the geographic confines of the nation. As far as the venue (the appropriate location to try the case), crimes against the US may generally be tried in any District in which acts associated with that crime took place. The fact that several thousand persons died in the S Dist of New York would justify that as one of the possible venues. Others might be where the flight training took place, where the aircraft were hijacked, etc.

Our criminal courts generally do not look to how the jurisdiction over the person was acquired. Some may remember a DEA agent Enrique Camarena (RIP) and the Mexican physician that kept him alive for an extended period while they mob tortured Camarena. The doctor was forcibly abduced by contractors working for DEA and brought to the US. There are other cases - Noriega, the Max Factor heir, etc. Bottom line, the US courts have yet to grant a defendant a get out of jail free card, just because the "Habeas Grabass" offended some people's notions of fairness.

So, the current rules (as I read them) without amendment allow for what is going on.

I would have preferred the case remain prosecuted under our Treaty obligations and through use of Military Commissions (Courts-martial) but the decision is a political one, the law (IMHO) allows for either. But we have a Const provision regarding double jeopardy and the US as a soverign gets but one bite at the apple. If this becomes a circus because it is in the civilian courts - the administration has itself to blame.... This is not submitted in jest, I am sure that should it go terribly worng, they will say "It's all Bush's fault".

v/r
phil
P.S. Richard, thank you for the thought provoking commentary. I find it most enjoyable!

[Shar]

Originally Posted by JAGO

Some quick thoughts:

I offer the observation that members of AQ are not members of a nation's military but rather stateless w/ respect to Army in the conduct of their actions. I would have preferred they be classified as "illegal combatants" (as distinguished from a Levy en masse) and then as illegal combatants they can be charged with their misdeeds under the law of war. Pursuant to our treaty obligations and the law of war, the US military has jurisdiction and them and the procedures set out in Title 10 US Code suppl by the military commissions act, allow for the military to have jurisdiction over those acts committed in violation of the law of war.

"Legal combatants" (military fighting in uniform and obeying the law of war) and those who rise up are not tried, but rather held as PW (in some cases the status is retained personnel and others civilian internes) until hostilities cease. Remember those WWII moves and Hogans Heroes? Held for the duration but not punished for crimes.


When this administration decided to handle the "illegal combatants" as criminals, in order to try and hopefully punish, we come down to two issues - jurisdiction and venue. Under Title 18 US Code, does the US have jurisdiction, that is the power to try the offense? The fact that over 3,000 persons were unlawfully killed with malice aforthought and certain persons conspired to commit murder, the U.S. obviously has the jurisdiction to adjudge the case. Nations have the power to defend their nationals. Likewise, the acts took place within the geographic confines of the nation. As far as the venue (the appropriate location to try the case), crimes against the US may generally be tried in any District in which acts associated with that crime took place. The fact that several thousand persons died in the S Dist of New York would justify that as one of the possible venues. Others might be where the flight training took place, where the aircraft were hijacked, etc.

Thank you for this - I was hoping someone with more legal experience (which doesn't take much) especially in the realm of military courts would chime in. I know there are a number of JAG on the boards.

What I'm continually confused at and have looked long and hard to find is exactly WHAT they are classified as right now. I see various incarnations of what their classification is at any given moment. Does it matter in the long run and they attach a different classification at will? Because in my mind, this is the crux of the jurisdiction issue and what could screw jurisdiction up completely. I know if I were defense, I'd be screaming illegal seizure at the top of my lungs.

Also, am I mistaken in thinking that they've already been held before a military tribunal to some degree? How would that affect jeopardy?

[Richard]

Guys - don't forget a 'clever' prosecutor does not place all of his/her eggs in a single basket (so to speak) when going after important criminals like these guys. I have a friend who is a very successful criminal prosecutor and - based on his years of experience with the sometime fickle nature of courts and juries - he always brings the minimum charges necessary for what he seeks to accomplish. He holds other charges he could have added back in case the trial does not end in a satisfactory result so that if that happens, he can always bring the defendant back to trial by then filing the other charges with the hope that a different jury or court will make the difference.

I'm hoping the prosecutors in these cases are clever and that the end results will be satisfactory to us all.

Richard's $.02

[JAGO]

Originally Posted by Shar

What I'm continually confused at and have looked long and hard to find is exactly WHAT they are classified as right now. I see various incarnations of what their classification is at any given moment. Does it matter in the long run and they attach a different classification at will? Because in my mind, this is the crux of the jurisdiction issue and what could screw jurisdiction up completely. I know if I were defense, I'd be screaming illegal seizure at the top of my lungs.

Also, am I mistaken in thinking that they've already been held before a military tribunal to some degree? How would that affect jeopardy?

I think the classification as "Defendant" in the case of United States of America v.___________.

The issue of pre-trial detention, bail, credit for pretrial detention, etc., were all considered if we are to accept the A.G.'s statement. The fact is, they have been in the custody of the United States - ablbeit the military vs law enforcement.

I don't think their seizure outside of the U.S. will be an issue under the 4th Amend. U.S. courts don't seem to take an interest in how the defendant was brought to court. The period of detention after seizure may give rise to an issue.... Likewise, the nature of any statements made.

However, prior to any of this, the attack took place. The United States developed credible evidence to implicate them. Outside of police custody, apparently they made statements proclaiming their involvment - and it would be hard to supress those statements. So, if there is independent existing evidence and they have made admissions, the case may survive.

My personal fear is that this is all being done not to seek responsiblity, but with the knowledge this will turn into a political circus. Obviously it will reengerize the left's base - to have judges ruling on political questions. And with an energized base, it may get them back to the polls. Shame on me for thinking such.

v/r
phil

[nmap]

A most interesting thread!

I wonder though, about the jury. As I recall, jurors are required to reveal their name and address, among other things. And counsel for defense gets to see that information.

I wonder - just how safe will a juror feel?

[Dad]

What if all the evidence needed to convict, say KSM, was acquired prior to the use of "harsh interrogation tactics". What if, in fact, the harsh tactics revealed exactly nothing that was not already known? What if the career prosecutors know this and have passed the info on to the new AG? Would that negate the arguments against the civilian trials being an intelligence bonanza for AQ? Would that explain the decision to go civilian? Would it also not help explain John Woo's outburst? I feel very strongly there is very much a "he doth protest too much" syndrome running around on a lot of issues.

[JAGO]

Originally Posted by Dad

What if all the evidence needed to convict, say KSM, was acquired prior to the use of "harsh interrogation tactics". What if, in fact, the harsh tactics revealed exactly nothing that was not already known? What if the career prosecutors know this and have passed the info on to the new AG? Would that negate the arguments against the civilian trials being an intelligence bonanza for AQ? (snip).

IMHO the result of any allegations the govt acted improperly depend upon the context.

Statements: Was the statement voluntarily given? Fifth amendment violations generally result in suppression of any statement improperly obtained. That is the remedy.

Parenthetically, where that becomes interesting is when the defendant later takes the stand and attempts to testify to a whole new version of events. The previously suppressed statement may be entered into evidence, not to prove the crime, but to impeach the defendant's new version of the facts.

Searches and Seizures: For the sake of argument, suppose improper (illegal) methods were also used to gather evidence in violation of the 4th amendment to the US Const? An illegal search (or seizure). A court might suppress the evidence obtained and hold that everthing obtained thereafter is therefore also inadmissible. The general theory is that any product (derived from) an illegal search and seizure becomes what is known as the "fruit of the poisonous tree" and is tainted.

If the prosecution is capable of proving its case with independent evidence that was not "tainted" the case is fine. If the prosecution proves they would have found the evidence anyway (inevitable discovery) the evidence is usually admitted.

In a standard situation under the one you posed, with independent evidence, the defendant is convicted and the jury never hears the "bad" evidence.

There is one angle I suppose, where a judge might come up with an opinion that the government's action is so grave as to "shock the conscience" of the court. Under the due process clause, it may be possible to say the whole thing violated the due process clause and the defendant is freed.

Such is the risk, by bringing the defendant into the US and placing him before a federal court. Once he is "feet dry" on US territory, all of the protections of our Const apply to him. It is a political decision to bring them here with consequences that will flow. The A.G. has assured us they covered all angles in making the decision.

v/r
phil

[Dad]

Thank you!! One further question. Is it possible for the justice dep't to choose the federal district they feel is the most likely to be favorable to the prosecution and might that have some play in choosing this particlular district?

[JAGO]

Originally Posted by Dad

Thank you!! One further question. Is it possible for the justice dep't to choose the federal district they feel is the most likely to be favorable to the prosecution and might that have some play in choosing this particlular district?

Dad,
BLUF: Yes

The US Const and the rules allow for the government to elect the venue. So long as the crime started in one location, continued through other Districts and culminated in another, the government may elect any of the Districts in which to prosecute.

The defendant is free to challenge the govt's choice of venue and may argue that another is more appropriate. If the defendant is able to demonstrate there is an unfair prejudice to his ability to defend (or the inablility to empanel a fair and impartial jury) the US Dist Judge may decide another venue as more appropriate.

Speedy trials rarely happen and if he decides not to plead guilty, expect lots of pre-trial issues as the defense lawyers advocate on behalf of their case.

v/r
phil