Or American judicial system do terrorism case
Boots the trial for the attack in Detroit
Abdulmutallab Nigerian pleads not guilty in his first appearance – Prosecutors accused expected to negotiate a sentence in exchange for information
Abdulmutallab Umar Farouk, the only accused of trying to fly a plane from the Northwest U.S. company last Christmas Day, yesterday pleaded innocent to the federal judge in Detroit who informed him of six counts brought against him by U.S. prosecutors . With the appearance of less than five minutes in which the door remained open to possible negotiation of the sentence, was made the first move towards a trial in which the Nigerian youth can be sentenced to life imprisonment.
A string of errors
From what he is accused
Three arrested at Heathrow
Easy prey to radicalism
The Al Qaeda offensive
This is an unprecedented situation in the U.S. justice
In a very soft voice and using good English, Abdulmutallab, wearing a white shirt and shackled at the feet, welcomed the privilege that gives justice to deny his guilt in the crimes attributed to him despite the many evidence accumulated against him. Thus, the defendant reserves the right, according to the rules of the American system of providing tax information on their activities, their objectives and their accomplices in exchange for a reduced sentence.
Abdulmutallab was reported six crimes, including attempted murder and use of weapons of mass destruction to bring down a plane with 289 people aboard, who were admitted this week by a grand jury in Detroit. The grand jury is the court that decides whether a case deserves to be seen in court. Detroit is the city where it is judged which saw the assassination attempt, although the court is of federal jurisdiction for crimes have that category.
Local media had reported in previous days of presence in the motor city of the accused father, a respected Nigerian banker who had complained to the American Embassy in Lagos suspicious activities of their child. Its influence can be far from decisive Abdulmutallab conduct in interrogations.
Experts believe that this is an easy case for the prosecution, given the multiple evidence linking the accused to the crime, although lieutenant in mind the political significance of the trial fit some surprises. The defense may try to prove insanity of the 23 years or, more likely, offer this negotiation to plead guilty.
Abdulmutallab is defended by the team of public defenders in the district of Detroit, led by Miriam Siefer, considered by his peers as one of the most literate in the country. One of his first courses of action will be to determine whether the accused was read his rights adequately and immediately after his arrest.
Sources prosecutors have not specified the time the FBI agents who interrogated him that he reported what are called “Miranda rights”, including that of keeping silent and to consult with an attorney. Proponents claim that came into contact first with Abdulmutallab to 30 hours of his arrest, but still unaware if that was the point at which the detainee is welcomed that right or the time it took the FBI to report that could do.
There is precedent for a situation like this because Abdulmutallab is the first suspected terrorists detained since the Supreme Court decided last year that the right of habeas corpus was valid for all defendants in any court of justice, both civil and military. In 2001 he was sentenced by ordinary courts Richard Reid, of British origin, for attempting to make a bomb on a plane hidden in the soles of her shoes. In 2003, the civil courts also addressed the case of Iyman Faris, who was condemned as part of a complex to destroy the Brooklyn Bridge. Two others accused of belonging to Al Qaeda operative Jose Padilla and Ali al-Marri, were sentenced by civilian judges, but in custody of military justice.
The military courts are under some opposition congressmen considered appropriate to have tried Abdulmutallab. “We have to treat these terrorists as they are not common criminals, but enemy combatants in a war,” said the ranking Republican on the Senate Intelligence Committee, Christopher Bond. Military courts have been more effective, according to this view, to obtain valuable information about the defendant’s activities, and that the detainee had been severely restricted rights in that jurisdiction. Meanwhile, the opposition believes that the presence of Abdulmutallab in civil court and that this requires shipments carries a security risk that could have been avoided.
The Government believes, however, that the justice system has more than enough resources to question the defendant and deprive him of the rights they protect any inmate is not, as demonstrated in the past provide no guarantee that more information.
In the background of this controversy is the criticism from conservatives that Barack Obama refuses to acknowledge that America is at war. The president repeated on Thursday that yes, the country is at war with al Qaeda, but the Administration has abolished the “war on terror” and “enemy combatants” that were used by the government of George Bush.
Possibly Related Articles:
Posted in Court Management | 
Tags: Civil courts, Court Management, Federal Judiciary Council, judicial system