[Deathpenalty] FW: [AALSMIN-L] NO TO US PREVENTIVE DETENTION LAW!
completion of a conflict. Tens of thousands of German and Italian prisoners of war were held inside the United States during World War II. But particularly inasmuch as the Bush administration invoked that authority as a basis for its much-criticized detention policies, a move by Mr. Obama to seek explicit authorization for indefinite detention without trial would be seen by some of his supporters as a betrayal. Opponents of a preventive detention law say that continuing to treat captives as detainees instead of defendants in court would support terrorists' self-image as warriors rather than criminals. And though the Guant?namo center might be closed, they say, the new law would effectively import Guant?namo and its image into the United States. "Not only do you not need a system of preventive detention, but it would perpetuate the problem of Guant?namo and put us right back in the same dead end we are in now," said Elisa Massimino, executive director of Human Rights First. On the other hand, some proponents of such a law say it would clarify questions left murky by the Bush administration's years of legal battles over Guant?namo. Benjamin Wittes, a fellow at the Brookings Institution <http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/b/brookings_institution/index.html?inline=nyt-org> , argued in a book published in June that Americans needed to cross a "psychological Rubicon" and accept the idea that preventive detention was a necessary tool for fighting terrorism. "I'm afraid of people getting released in the name of human rights and doing terrible things," Mr. Wittes said in an interview. He said debates over Guant?namo had created a mythology that American law permitted detention only upon conviction of a crime. Locking up mentally ill people who are deemed dangerous, he noted, is an accepted American legal practice. At the heart of the debate about whether a preventive detention law is necessary is uncertainty about the risks of criminal trials. Some lawyers warn that given the nature of evidence against some Guant?namo detainees, prosecutors may not be able to convict them. "We have lots of information that is reliable, that tells us someone is a threat and that cannot be proved in court," said Andrew C. McCarthy, a former federal terrorism prosecutor who is now director of the Center for Law and Counterterrorism. Putting detainees on trial in American courts could be difficult in part because suspects captured in war do not receive protections, like warnings against self-incrimination, that are standard police practice. And much evidence against the detainees is classified; intelligence officials say it cannot be disclosed. Further, some interrogation practices, including the simulated-drowning technique of waterboarding <http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/t/torture/waterboarding/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier> , might leave crucial government evidence unacceptable to American judges. Jack L. Goldsmith <http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/g/jack_l_goldsmith/index.html?inline=nyt-per> , a former Justice Department official in the Bush administration who has written a book critical of some of the administration's legal strategies, is among those calling for a preventive detention law. Professor Goldsmith, who teaches at Harvard Law School, said in an interview that he believed the administration had correctly asserted a right to detain the men held at Guant?namo. But, he said, Congressional approval would "ensure that we can legitimate holding people for a long term." In the absence of such a law, any plan to move even some of the remaining 250 Guant?namo prisoners to the United States would require a careful analysis of the authority to hold the detainees, several of whom have said they would relish an opportunity to kill Americans. In the end, the Obama administration may conclude that it is simply not feasible to seek a new preventive detention measure. Doing so could portray the new administration as following in the footsteps of President Bush, surely an unlikely goal as Mr. Obama sorts through his options. A version of this article appeared in print on November 15, 2008, on page A13 of the New York edition. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) fboyle at law.uiuc.edu (personal comments only) -- next part -- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: ATT1816052.txt URL: <http://lists.washlaw.edu/mailman/private/deathpenalty/attachments/20081116/b8d0d7fd/attachment-0001.txt>
[Deathpenalty] death penalty news-----TEXAS, N.H., MD.
Nov. 16 TEXAS: Dallas County district attorney reconciles opposition to death penalty with the law Dallas County District Attorney Craig Watkins created a conviction integrity unit. He invited law students into his office to help probe for wrongful convictions. And there is at least one other way Watkins differs from most other prosecutors: He is personally opposed to capital punishment. In recent interviews, Watkins discussed those feelings and how he reconciles them with Texas law and the policies of his office. Why are you opposed to capital punishment? I'm a human being, and as a human being, I will not kill anybody. I don't want to use my position to take a life, even though you may go out and do a heinous crime. I may be even worse than you because I have the full weight of the government behind me. For me to use the full weight of the government to do the same thing that you did, is that justifiable? We just agreed to seek the death penalty against a guy that raped a 3-year-old girl and strangled her and left her under a bed. When I see that, the human side of me says, "Yeah, that guy should be killed." But then the government is the supreme being, right? You're in a supreme position. You're higher than human existence and you should carry yourself as such. Given your feelings, when your office seeks the death penalty, do you personally sign off on that? Professionally that's something I have to do . . . for the citizens I represent. . . . It's the law and I have to implement it. I can't let my personal views get in the way of what the public wants. Will your feelings about the death penalty ever affect the policy of your office? I would like to think that I have the courage to stand up and say no [to capital punishment]. But Im not at that point. I don't know if I ever will be. It's so early in my career as DA. I don't have any seniority. I don't have any credibility. . . . That might be a fight that I should fight, but at this point it's too early. Do decisions on capital cases cause you any sleepless nights? All the time. Not just the ones that I make the decision on. Every time I read in the newspaper that someone is going to the death chamber, I don't sleep. . . . They just did one last week with one of the Texas Seven. I pay attention to that. That's something I struggle with, even though the person did something really bad. Are you concerned your position on capital punishment will hurt you politically? I think it will, obviously. I can foresee the attacks that will come my way. But at the end of the day, the public wants honesty and openness. The fact that I am publicly trying to come to a conclusion on this is good for the system, and it's good for politics. I dont think politicians are honest enough. (source: Fort Worth Star-Telegram) NEW HAMPSHIRE/USA: Experts say trend has found juries moving away from death penalty With prosecutors expected tomorrow to begin their case for the death penalty against convicted cop killer Michael K. Addison, 28, local and national legal minds warn it will be hard to convince a New Hampshire jury to vote unanimously for execution. They point to the case of former Manchester businessman and convicted murderer John Brooks, 56, whose life was spared by a different jury 10 days ago. The Rockingham County jury of seven women and five men found Brooks was legally eligible for execution, but at least one juror thought he did not deserve it. For the Brooks jury, deliberating on whether a man should die was an emotional experience, and too painful to talk about, some of them said when reached by telephone or at their homes. The six men and six women from Hillsborough County who will decide Addison's future must weigh a substantially different set of circumstances, but the Brooks sentencing verdict speaks to a 10-year national trend in which juries have shied away from capital punishment, according to Richard Dieter, executive director of the Death Penalty Information Center in Washington, D.C. In 1998, juries across the country sent 306 defendants to death row. Last year, only 110 received the same punishment, Dieter said. New Hampshire has not executed an inmate since 1939, and no one has been sentenced to death here since 1959. "There is a tradition of not using the death penalty in New Hampshire," said Dieter. "So even though (jurors) might support the death penalty, they will have some skepticism or reluctance. As prosecutors, you have to make a very strong case, maybe more so than if you come from Texas, where it is not quite as unusual." Dieter said the chances of a jury voting for death decreases when states, like New Hampshire, offer another choice -- life without the possibility of parole. "There is a reluctance in places that don't have a natural affinity for the death penalty, but that is not to say it's not possible," said Dieter. Different circumstances Albert "Buzz" Scherr, a professor at Franklin Pierce Law Cente
[Deathpenalty] death penalty news-----ALA., MD.
Nov. 16 ALABAMA: Truth On Trial Decatur, Ala., sitting along the banks of the often murky Tennessee River, was once a booming river city with a thriving railroad. Local crime reporter Jonathan Baggs says nothing shattered that quiet city like the case of 34-year-old Daniel Wade Moore. The ordeal Moore's been through has left him yearning for life's most simple pleasures, like sitting on the front porch with his sister. Daniel learned about life the hard way - Decatur is home, except when he was living on Alabama's death row. Daniel, who works for the local electric company, has his simple life back. But a constant part of that life is an unimaginable possibility: that he could once again become a dead man walking. Nearly 6 years ago, Daniel was convicted of the murder of Karen Tipton and sent to death row. In 2005, the conviction was overturned, but he now faces another trial, and once again the death penalty. "Time and time again you get a little bit of hope only to have the carpet jerked right out from under you. You can only take that so many times before you learn to quit hoping," he tells correspondent Erin Moriarty. Dr. David Tipton also struggles to hang on to hope. He once lived in Decatur, on the other side of the tracks from Daniel. Tipton, a psychiatrist, was raising his daughters Caroline and Catherine in their leafy Decatur neighborhood until something went terribly wrong: the brutal murder of Karen. What happened 9 years ago to Karen would connect David to Daniel in ways neither man could have imagined. Certainly not back in 1984, when David, a medical student, first met the beautiful blonde technician at an Alabama hospital. Karen's brother Lance and sister Laurie say after five years of dating, Karen decided David was the one. "She said at one point, you know, 'He is just a great guy. He's gonna make some person a great husband. It might as well be me,'" Laurie remembers. The 1st thing Karen wanted to do was start a family. But the Tiptons' seemingly idyllic like came to an abrupt end on March 12, 1999, when David says he came home from work earlier than usual that day to go to the theatre. When he walked from the garage into the house, he noticed the deadbolt on the door was not locked. Inside, he also noticed that the alarm panel had been removed from the wall. He found it lying on a kitchen counter. "It was unusual. But it was not so weird. Given the fact that our alarm system was not working and we were expecting it to be fixed," he remembers. David went into the foyer to hang up his coat. As he was calling for his wife, he says he noticed a small drop of blood on a tile in the foyer. "The next thing I saw was more blood. In the foyer, toward the door," he remembers. "And I walked up the stairs and was the most surprised person on the face of the earth to find a dead body there that looked somewhat like Karen." Karen's nude body was lying at the top of the stairs. She had been stabbed 28 times, and her throat had been cut. David called 911. "She is dead. I have no idea where my children are. There's blood everywhere. I'm really concerned about my children," he told the operator. Investigators began searching for clues, as officers tracked down the Tipton children, who were still at school where they had never been picked up. Who would kill this 39-year-old housewife and mother? The crime scene was puzzling: David reported that Karen's purse and some jewelry were missing, but her diamond ring was still on her finger and there was no evidence of forced entry. Most striking of all was how brutal and vicious the killing was - a sign to investigators that the killer may have been someone who knew Karen. "Even from the beginning, I realized that I had to be a suspect. Because I was the first on the scene and the husband. I knew that," David says. Police believed Karen was murdered sometime between 1 p.m. - after a phone call to a friend - and 2:30 pm when she was supposed to pick up the kids from school. David's office manager said he left his office in neighboring Huntsville at 3:30 p.m. Jonathan Baggs, then working for the Decatur Daily, heard the report come across his police radio. He says that once police ruled out Karen's husband, they faced another problem. "There was a lot of pressure to solve this case and solve it very quickly," he remembers. But days, then weeks went by with no solid leads. Until one month later, when a high speed chase of a random shoplifter ended with the arrest of Daniel Wade Moore, then just 24 years old. Some 48 hours later, in a twist no one could have predicted, police believed they had found Karen's killer. In April 1999, when Decatur, Ala. police arrested Daniel, all they thought they had was a petty thief and drug addict. "'I'd been on drugs for awhile, I'd pretty much just given up on life," Daniel told Moriarty, acknowledging he had been using crack cocaine and marijuana. But in 2 days' time, Daniel's case would quickl
[Deathpenalty] death penalty news----worldwide
Nov. 16 IRAQ: Iraqis accused of murdering British troops not seeking asylumBritish lawyer says his clients should receive a fair trial in Britain, rather than risk torture and execution in Iraq. 2 Iraqis accused of murdering British troops in 2003 are "not interested" in seeking asylum in Britain, their lawyer told me this morning. Phil Shiner said he had no instructions to seek refugee status for Faisal Al-Saadoon and Khalaf Mufdhi if they were brought to Britain for trial but not convicted. The 2 former Ba'ath party officials are currently held by the British authorities in Basra. Mr Shiner is challenging the Ministry of Defence over its plan to hand the defendants over for trial by an Iraqi court. They are accused of killing Staff Sergeant Simon Cullingworth and Sapper Luke Allsopp in cold blood during the beginning of the Iraq war in 2003. Mr Shiner says the 2 Iraqis should be brought to London and tried for war crimes at the Old Bailey, so that relatives of the 2 soldiers can attend. The question of political asylum would arise only if the 2 were acquitted or the trial did not go ahead for some reason. It strikes me as unlikely that men suspected but unconvicted of killing British troops would want to live in Britain. "What we are seeking is to prohibit the men's transfer to the Iraqi court and their safe passage out of Iraq," Mr Shiner said. As the Telegraph reported today, Patrick Mercer, the Tory MP for Newark and a former infantry commander, said: "It seems totally wrong to me that these men are being given legal aid. Would we have given legal aid to Nazis who committed war crimes in the Second World War? Of course not this is arrant nonsense." In fact, the Nazis tried at Nuremberg were allowed defence lawyers. Some were even acquitted. I am not aware of any Nazi defendant being refused a lawyer because of inability to pay, but they may have been funded by their supporters rather than by the tribunal. Legal aid is certainly provided by all the current war crimes tribunals. Imagine, though, that the 2 Iraqis were denied legal aid. Is Mr Mercer suggesting that they should be brought to London to argue their case with, I presume, little English and no knowledge of English law? Is he proposing that their lawyers should act for nothing? Or is he arguing that they do not have a case worth putting to the English courts? If the latter, then the judges are against him. The 2 Iraqis have been given permission to seek judicial review and the case will open before a 2-judge divisional court on Tuesday. The men's lawyers have 3 main points to argue: That there is a flagrant risk of a trial in Iraq being unfair because the court has a fundamental bias against former members of the Baath party. That the defendants are at risk of being sentenced to death, despite Britain's policy of not handing prisoners over if they face execution and despite a plea for clemency from the family of one of the soldiers killed. That the defendants risk torture or ill-treatment in prison, contrary to Article 3 of the Human Rights Convention. How, though, can the European Convention on Human Rights apply in Iraq? The answer is to be found in a ruling by the House of Lords last year in a case called Al-Skeini, which dealt with the death of the Iraqi hotel worker Baha Mousa in British military custody. That case establishes that the Human Rights Act applies to a British military detention unit abroad. Despite that, the Ministry of Defence does not accept that the duties not to send a defendant to a country where he may be tortured or executed are engaged in this case. The 2 men have been held in British custody for 5 years or more. We are told by the Government that Britain has received assurances from the Iraqi government that Mr Al-Saadoon and Mr Mufdhi will be treated humanely in Iraqi custody and that Britain finds these assurances "credible". We have not been told of any assurances that the 2 will not be sentenced to death. The question of principle raised by this case is whether our courts should hold the British Government to higher standards than those we encounter in countries such as Iraq or, indeed, the United States. In my view, they should. (source: Joshua Rozenberg; The Telegraph) JAMAICA: Vote on death penalty motion expected by mid-week THE House of Representatives spent 2 days last week debating the controversial issue of capital punishment, but will not vote on the motion until Tuesday or, possibly, Wednesday. The length of the debate will depend on how many more MPs want to speak. When Speaker, Delroy Chuck, adjourned the debate last Wednesday to deal with some other matters, it was obvious that several others wanted to speak. It has been a very emotional debate so far, with members supporting or opposing the retention of capital punishment seated on both sides. For example, while Opposition MP, Dr Patrick Harris (North Trelawny) and Government members Joseph Hibbert,
