Gitmo Inmates on the move to Illinois

well just great...if there is a major breakout i will blame obama and gov. quinn for this.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091115/ap_on_re_us/us_illinois_prison_obama

That's where Noriega is. Evidently that prison goes several storeys undergriound.
They wont bust out, and if they do, the people in Illinois may have certain less humane ideas about how to treat them.

Isn't the first WTC bomber in a U.S. jail?

I always thought Alcatraz would be a good isolated place. Of course,that's been closed for years. All and all I am not fearful should they move them to a prison here in the U.S.

TIS

I am fearful that these terrorists thugs will be coming to the US. All we need is for our Government to FUCK up and they get off on a technicality and turn them loose. And then what will happen 9/11 part 2? NO keep their asses at Gitmo. Don't close it down.

They're not getting off, Mig. Not even by some self loathing, leftover from the '60s, activist, scumbag lawyer, so don't even worry about it.

I will try not to. My dad say's I'm a worry wart. I guess he's right.

Mig, they aren't getting off. The defense is going to try to make a big deal out of confessions extracted by "torture," but it is going no where. They have enough on these guys without bringing in waterboarding, etc. The trial judge has a lot of discretion about what can be said and what cannot be. If the Feds are smart they'll lay out all the evidence they got in a non-controversal way so that the defense may not even be permitted to use the word torture or otherwise make a circus of the trials.

Furthermore, there is no Appeals Court ESPECIALLY the U.S. Supremes who will not back up a tough no nonsene trial judge with these people. They are going down.

Thanks for the reassurance DT,PB.

DT or Kly,

Re 911 terrorist mastermind, Kalib Shaek Mohammud, (I know I messed up the spelling)trial to be in NYC. I've heard commentators and experts claim that the defense would request to move the trial to another venue do to prejudice. That would seem logical (from the defense perspective). Do you think they will move it? How likely? Just wondering.

TIS

I'd like to know how the NYC locals feel about it.

I just posted about that in the Obama thread, Mig. I don't want it here.

Probably split. Some are afraid of some kind of attack, which IMHO is why we have to show the world we are NOT AFRAID to try these people and
ask for the death penalty and have a jury decide. If it works, it is a victory for the American Way of Justice.

As for a change of venue, where do they suggest? Alabama?
BTW in the unlikely event one of them tries to escape, where would he go? I am sure there are more than a few neighborhoods in NY where the locals would be more than happy to "take care of" the escape.

Just don't let Vincent LaGuardia Gambini defend them in Alabama. We wouldn't stand a chance.

Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution states that crimes are to be tried in the state where the offense was committed. So,if not tried in New York City, then in New York State unless a motion is granted for a change of venue.

So if not New York State, then in the District of Columbia. Or even better, in a military tribunal out on a Naval ship in the middle of the ocean.

Let's not forget that the attacks of September 11 were comprised of a series of criminal acts prohibited by not only U.S. domestic law, but also international law and the law of war. Those attacks took place in both New York City, against civilian targets and in The District of Columbia against both civilian and military targets. The hijacking of those planes not only violated hijacking laws, but the people on those planes were being held against their will....which translates into being taken hostage.

I believe that because of the nature of these attacks, those accused of being responsible for coordinating and planning these acts of terrorism should be put in front of a military tribunal and judged accordingly.

However, with that being said, being that it has been decided that they will not stand trial in front of a military tribunal, then they should be judged by those that live in NYC AND in the District of Columbia. ("crimes are to be tried in the state where the offense was committed.") They should be put on trial in NYC, and after that trial is done, then put on trial in the District of Columbia. They should have to face two trials. Just like the way it was done with the DC Sniper.

Thanks for clarifying with Article III, Section 2 DC. It does make perfect sense that this trial MUST be in the state of NY.

The reason I ask about a change in venue is because I've heard several experts (Jonathan Turley, law professor for one)say that the defense will most likely immediately try for this change. I was just wondering how likely it would be that the judge will grant it.



TIS

Given the national attention that the attack received, there's not much chance that a more impartial jury outside of NYC or NYS could be empaneled. Also, it's possible that a separate trial could be held for each victim should the initial prosecution fail. It's going to be interesting to see how defense claims based on the "exclusionary rule" are handled.

A change in venue is in order if holding the trial in the venue of the corpus or crime results in undue prejudice to the defendant. The law also allows for a change of venire, which means selecting a jury from another district and bringing them to the venue.

Kly, that decision about undue prejudice is up solely to the judge, is that correct?
But the case must be tried somewhere, yes? In cases like this where there is a lot of pre-trial interest and passion across the US, would a defense attorney be more inclined to fight for change of venue or spend his/her energy on other strategies? Thx!

Yes. The judge has discretion to determine whether a change of venue is in order. The standard he uses isn't merely based on pretrial publicity by itself, but whether the publicity has a realistic possibility of prejudicing a jury prior to the introduction of evidence. Then a balancing of the interests of holding the trial in the venue vs. the possible extent of a polluted jury pool.

I personally don't think it would be fair to select NYC residents as jurors for this trial as the extent of the attack was so pervasive that it affected many people there. They have lived through the atrocity firsthand. Media coverage, daily conversation and eye witnessing (even days/weeks/months after the attack) would be naturally more impassioned in NYC.

Now a juror is not necessarily disqualified from service by having knowledge of the crime, for which the trial is held. A juror can qualify if he/she can demonstrate that a decision can be reached, based only on the evidence presented and the reasonable inferences drawn therefrom.

I know some goodfellas around Thompson, Illinois and they say let them escape - Please!!!

I don't know about escapes but in the unlikely event that a person is acquitted, the AG will not rule out detaining them.
Failure Not an Option