Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

I have no idea what the opinion truly says yet. But it is big news. Looks like its a very complicated decision.
1 posted on 04/22/2004 3:11:07 PM PDT by kazander
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


To: kazander
Isn't the appeal of this ruling what The Supremes are now considering?
2 posted on 04/22/2004 3:13:59 PM PDT by Prince Charles
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: kazander
That is John F'ing Kerry speak. It says that we agree with the district court, but we are ruling against them. Good for the good guys.
4 posted on 04/22/2004 3:18:05 PM PDT by NeonKnight
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: kazander
I'll take a stab at it.

We affirm the conclusion of the district court that the enemy combatant witnesses could provide material, favorable testimony on Moussaoui’s behalf, and we agree with the district court that the Government’s proposed substitutions for the witnesses’ deposition testimony are inadequate.

They ruled that the witnesses have info Moussaoui should see..

However, we reverse the district court insofar as it held that it is not possible to craft adequate substitutions, and we remand with instructions for the district court and the parties to craft substitutions under certain guidelines.

They told the district court there are options.....figure it out.

Finally, we vacate the order imposing sanctions on the Government.

They vacated the penalties placed on the government.

7 posted on 04/22/2004 3:23:23 PM PDT by Dog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: kazander; xzins
"The Government proposed substitutions for the witnesses’ deposition testimony in the form of a series of statements derived from the * * * * summaries. The district court rejected all proposed substitutions as inadequate. The ruling of the district court was based on its conclusions regarding the inherent inadequacy of the substitutions and its findings regarding the specific failings of the Government’s proposals. For the reasons set forth below, we reject the ruling of the district court that any substitution for the witnesses’ testimony would be inadequate. We agree, however, with the assessment that the particular proposals submitted by the Government are inadequate in their current form."

.

Sounds like a wash. 62 pages to tell the parties to go back to square one.

10 posted on 04/22/2004 3:33:47 PM PDT by P-Marlowe (Let your light so shine before men....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: kazander
The case will be moved to a military tribunal. The US will not allow him access to these guys.
12 posted on 04/22/2004 3:52:40 PM PDT by the Real fifi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: kazander
Wilkins is fun:
"...Indeed, the Supreme Court has observed that "even quite burdensome interactions" between the judiciary and the Executive do not "necessarily rise to the level of constitutionally forbidden impairment of the Executive’s ability to perform its constitutionally mandated functions." Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 702 (1997)...
...The district court orders requiring production of the enemy combatant witnesses involved the resolution of questions properly—indeed, excusively—reserved to the judiciary. Therefore, if there is a separation of powers problem at all, it arises only from the burden the actions of the district court place on the Executive’s performance of its duties. See Clinton, 520 U.S. at 701-06 (addressing claim that separation of powers principles barred "an otherwise traditional exercise of judicial power" that would "impose an unacceptable burden on the President’s time and energy, and thereby impair the effective performance of his office").

Williams is right that the court cannot require the CINC to produce the witnesses:
"... the Supreme Court has held that "[e]xecutive power over enemy aliens, undelayed and unhampered by litigation, has been deemed, throughout our history, essential to war-time security." Eisentrager, 339 U.S. at 774."

But Gregory, surprisingly, gets the apt point:
"...The ultimate question that must be resolved to determine whether Moussaoui is eligible for the death penalty is this: Did he participate in the September 11 attack, or know of the attack in advance? If Moussaoui cannot ask this question of the witnesses who have direct knowledge, he is undeniably and irretrievably handicapped in his ability to defend himself from a sentence of death."

Moussaoui should be in a tribunal. He would get the fairest legal treatment that way. (And then rightfully be killed IMHO). This is too difficult for the Judiciary.

13 posted on 04/22/2004 3:58:51 PM PDT by mrsmith ("Oyez, oyez! All rise for the Honorable Chief Justice... Hillary Rodham Clinton ")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: kazander
I've been reading it and:

Defendant's 6th Amendment rights upheld: the government tried to get out of producing witnesses because they are foreigners overseas. The argument lost because they are in U.S. custody and a writ of habeas corpus for testimony can be served on the custodian of such people.

Then it discusses whether witnesses can testify on the basis of the AG not granting them immunity. Basically, this plays the defendant's 6th against the witness' 5th. This argument was tossed because a court can't automatically assume a witness would invoke the 5th.

It then agrees that producing the witness places a substantial burden on the executive, something that brings separation of powers into the mix.

Then the executive lost trying to say the witnesses aren't material (duh).

Then it shows that the lower court properly ordered the government to produce the witness, while admitting that the government has the right to refuse, but under penalty of sanction (which would be dismissal of the case). However, since this is a special case and the government has an extreme national security interest, the court doesn't think sanction is in order.

The court is then trying to find a substitution for testimony that would balance the government's interests and the defendant's rights. It agrees the government's previously proposed substitutions were inadequate (I think they're redacted interrogation transcripts), but the lower court was wrong in thinking there is no possibility of an adequate substitution.

But it did agree that the government played with what was included in the substitutions: excluding exculpatory testimony and including damaging testimony. In other words, they basically tried to tamper with evidence.

So the court proposes that the lower court work with the parties to craft new substitutions that are fair to the defendant but do not damage the government's interest in national security.


14 posted on 04/22/2004 3:59:48 PM PDT by antiRepublicrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: kazander
As I read the legal goggley-gook, Moussaoui gets limited and restricted access to his fellow terrorists and the government gets to eventually nail his sorry islamist arse.

Seems reasonably fair to me.
16 posted on 04/22/2004 4:02:40 PM PDT by Oldeconomybuyer (The democRATS are near the tipping point.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: kazander
Okay, I'm getting a flashback to the night the Bush v. Gore decision came down...and I am remembering that "reverse and remand" is more severe than "vacate". So the important part is that part that was reversed.
17 posted on 04/22/2004 4:09:39 PM PDT by hellinahandcart
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Dark Wing; Dog Gone
ping
18 posted on 04/22/2004 4:12:11 PM PDT by Thud
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: kazander
http://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/moussaoui4792/pdf/034792opn.pdf
20 posted on 04/22/2004 4:13:02 PM PDT by Thud
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: kazander
Bio Of Leonie M. Brinkema, USDC-Eastern District Virgina

Brinkema, Leonie M.
Born 1944 in Teaneck, NJ

Federal Judicial Service:
U. S. District Court, Eastern District of Virginia
Nominated by William J. Clinton on August 6, 1993, to
a seat vacated by Albert V. Bryan;
Confirmed by the Senate on October 18, 1993, and
received commission on October 20, 1993.

Education:
Rutgers University, B.A., 1966

Rutgers University, M.L.S., 1970

Cornell Law School, J.D., 1976

Professional Career:
Trial attorney, Public Integrity Section, Criminal
Division, U.S. Department of Justice, 1976-1977
Assistant U.S. attorney, Eastern District of Virginia,
1977-1983
Trial attorney, Office of International Affairs, Criminal
Division, U.S. Department of Justice, 1983-1984
Part-time legal instructor, Northern Virginia Criminal
Justice Academy, 1984-1985
Private practice, Alexandria, Virginia, 1984-1985
U.S. Magistrate, U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, 1985-1993

Race or Ethnicity: White

Gender: Female
21 posted on 04/22/2004 4:14:48 PM PDT by Smartass (BUSH & CHENEY 2004 - THE BEST GET BETTER)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Congressman Billybob
Ping for analysis far better than anything you'll find from Rita Cosby (or me; I'm not even going to try my hand at deciphering this one).
24 posted on 04/22/2004 4:55:40 PM PDT by steveegg (Radical Islam has more in common with Islamic populations than the mainstream media has with America)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: kazander
It was a huge mistake to allow this "case" to enter the judicial system. IMO the GW admin should correct that mistake by sending this spawn of Satan to Gitmo for military trial and execution ASAP.
27 posted on 04/22/2004 8:07:03 PM PDT by Mad_Tom_Rackham (Any day you wake up is a good day.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: kazander
Ashcroft just interviewed on FoxNews....thumbs up from him. This is what they were looking for!
32 posted on 04/23/2004 9:14:57 AM PDT by shield (The Greatest Scientific Discoveries of the Century Reveal God!!!! by Dr. H. Ross, Astrophysicist)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson