Contessa_Sharra
Searcher for Accuracy
- Apr 27, 2008
- 1,639
- 149
- 48
Home Court Advantage
Giuliani should know better than to impugn the capabilities of federal courts.
By Jonathan Alter | Newsweek Web Exclusive
Nov 18, 2009
When last we heard from him, Rudy Giuliani had spent $59 million to win one delegate to the 2008 Republican National Convention. Now he's disrespecting the career attorneys at his old stomping ground, the U.S. Department of Justice, and setting new records in the competitive sport of scaremongering. (Click here to follow Jonathan Alter).
The decision of Attorney General Eric Holder (not President Obama) to prosecute Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (KSM), the mastermind of the attacks of 9/11, in New York City has kicked off a predictable political flap. Republicans smell political advantage—"The Obama administration is finished. The Democratic Party is finished," exulted Mike Huckabee—and even some Democrats, such as embattled New York Gov. David Paterson, are running for cover.
But the New York officials who count—Mayor Michael Bloomberg, Police Commissioner Ray Kelly, and Sen. Chuck Schumer—came fully on board with Holder's decision once they were reassured that the city would be reimbursed for the extra security. They have no doubt that New York can handle the trial, which is at least a year away.
As Giuliani knows, there are practical prosecutorial reasons to proceed against the biggest criminal in the history of the United States in federal court. Unlike some other detainees, KSM has confessed so many times outside of his interrogations that prosecutors won’t need to introduce evidence obtained through waterboarding. For that reason, efforts by the defense to make the trial about the abuses of the U.S. government will surely fail. And because federal courts have ample precedent in handling terrorism cases, the case will proceed much faster than it would in a military tribunal: by order of the Supreme Court, military justice is subject to extensive judicial review. After convictions in military courts, the appeals process can drag on, because everything about those tribunals is new and therefore subjected to endless adjudication.
Rules of fair use prohibit posting of pieces in their entirety.
~Dude
Giuliani should know better than to impugn the capabilities of federal courts.
By Jonathan Alter | Newsweek Web Exclusive
Nov 18, 2009
When last we heard from him, Rudy Giuliani had spent $59 million to win one delegate to the 2008 Republican National Convention. Now he's disrespecting the career attorneys at his old stomping ground, the U.S. Department of Justice, and setting new records in the competitive sport of scaremongering. (Click here to follow Jonathan Alter).
The decision of Attorney General Eric Holder (not President Obama) to prosecute Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (KSM), the mastermind of the attacks of 9/11, in New York City has kicked off a predictable political flap. Republicans smell political advantage—"The Obama administration is finished. The Democratic Party is finished," exulted Mike Huckabee—and even some Democrats, such as embattled New York Gov. David Paterson, are running for cover.
But the New York officials who count—Mayor Michael Bloomberg, Police Commissioner Ray Kelly, and Sen. Chuck Schumer—came fully on board with Holder's decision once they were reassured that the city would be reimbursed for the extra security. They have no doubt that New York can handle the trial, which is at least a year away.
As Giuliani knows, there are practical prosecutorial reasons to proceed against the biggest criminal in the history of the United States in federal court. Unlike some other detainees, KSM has confessed so many times outside of his interrogations that prosecutors won’t need to introduce evidence obtained through waterboarding. For that reason, efforts by the defense to make the trial about the abuses of the U.S. government will surely fail. And because federal courts have ample precedent in handling terrorism cases, the case will proceed much faster than it would in a military tribunal: by order of the Supreme Court, military justice is subject to extensive judicial review. After convictions in military courts, the appeals process can drag on, because everything about those tribunals is new and therefore subjected to endless adjudication.
Rules of fair use prohibit posting of pieces in their entirety.
~Dude
Last edited by a moderator:
