Legal Issues

 For there to be good governance in any system, there is need for the parties that are involved talk. This should apply to all the leaders be it a leader in an organization or a leader in a state. There is need for dialogues among these people who are involved as this is the only way that good decisions will be made. In addition, with different views from different people, it will be possible to come up with a better solution to the problem that needs to be solved. A good leader is one who is always ready to listen to what other people have to say on the plan that needs to be implemented. (Benjamin, 2009)

In this case therefore, it would be a great idea that the governor makes a number of consultations to different people before implementing her ideas. Even though they may be great ideas, it is advisable that she gets the real situation as it is in the field. It is necessary that she consults all those people that are in the fields that are involved.

Among the major persons that she should consult are the persons who are the head of the criminal justice systems and all the other departments that will be involved.  The reason is that these people are the ones who are actually involved in the correctional activities and this is the field that she wants to make some changes. This means that these are the people who actually know the real activities that take place on the ground. This means that they are the ones who actually know whether the project or the developments will have positive of negative effect to the entire criminal justice system. (Paul, 1999)

In addition, because she plans to change some of the policies in the criminal justice system such as reducing some sentences, it would also be advisable that she seeks some advice from the policy makers. These are the people who make policies depending on the intensity of the criminal activities that needs to be implemented. They are therefore the ones who are sure of the effect that reducing these sentences will have to the society. They are also at a better place in offering the governor advice on her developments. (Benjamin, 2009)

Among the people that should be appointed in her task force are the head of all those areas that will be affected by her development. This is because they are the ones who are well informed of the problems or challenges that might arise due to these developments. They also have the back ground information concerning what needs to be done so that better results can be realize. In the same task force, the governor should include some of those cabinet ministers who were supporting her and those from the other parties. This is because, these are the same people that she would use in her next campaign and therefore, being in the task force makes them have a good base for the governors next elections. (Shafritz, 2008)

To these individuals that the governor wants to serve in the task force, she should use a soft and encouraging language. She should use statements such as It is time for change in our systems or Let us embrace change in this era. Such types of statements would make these individuals believe that indeed the governor just wants to have some change in the system and that it has nothing to do with her re-election. In addition, they will give their best in the task force and they will not feel as if they are being used by the governor. However, the governor should use a very friendly and formal language and where possible, she should personally request each and every one of these individuals for their participation in the task force. However, the governor should summon each one of them to her office as this would be more official and eliminate any doubts that the governor has some personal plans in it. (Paul, 1999)

However, she should approach these people differently. For the members of cabinet who happen to support her in the elections, she should give them information in full. She should tell them that apart from the change being better for the society, this is their strategy of the next election. She should tell them about it in a partys private meeting as this would be more convenient. However, to the rest of the groups which are involved, she should only tell them about the need for change. This should be strictly on official meetings which have not extra businesses.

The governor should deliver this message to the public through a press conference using the media. However the wording should be informal where the media personality may be allowed to ask questions. The governor should have a metaphor or rhetoric questions with the theme of the development such as Recession Eviction time is now where she should talk about increasing the revenues without having to increase taxes. She can also use other rhetoric such as How do we eliminate criminal activities and reduce long sentences Or she may use rhetoric such as How do we become number one crime free state in the world (Paul, 1999)

The governor may expect some tough questions from the media personalities such as whether this has something to do with the next elections strategies. She should maintain that the main aim for this is to ensure that there is good leadership and that every person lives in peace and have a better life. Using the comments that the governor gets from the media and the reaction from the public, she should be able to assess whether it is necessary to go ahead and have the task force. In case there is sharp negative reaction from the public, she should try to come up with some other strategies and forget about this one.

There may be some barriers to communication that may arise from the different people who are selected in the task force. One of the barriers will arise from the rank. There may be a problem with the relationship between the cabinet members and those heads of different groups. Sometimes they will have different views and it may be very difficult for them to communicate especially where some members feels shortchanged. For instance, the cabinet members may not easily take advice from the criminal justice official and this may create a big problem in implementation of ideas. This can be solved by the head of the task force by making all the members of the task force to have equal rights and spelling out clearly the main reason for the task force so that they can base their arguments on that. (Shafritz, 2008)

If the task force happens to create a plan, these principles should be presented to the operational staff in form of a report which should have all the details together with the recommendations. These operational staff should be given about two years to put the recommendations into practice. Some of the barriers to communication that may arise between the task force members and the levels of the policy makers revolve around the methods that would be used to implement the principles.  The task force may have difficult time trying to convince the policy makers to implement the principles their way. (Benjamin, 2009)
In conclusion, due to this, lack of enough information on implementation of this principle may be termed as the major barriers to communication. Administrative issues will also pose as the general barriers to communication as most of the departments would like to act on their own while the task force will require them to follow a certain schedule. There is need for the governor to be well prepared as this process or these developments may face a lot of challenges. She should be ready to face and deal with the problems as they arise.

The Khalid Sheikh Mohammed Case raises a number of issues with respect to criminal procedure. The case involves the purported mastermind of a number of terrorist acts including the September 11th, 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center. If one were to treat the case as a normal criminal procedure in Federal Court, ignoring the enemy combatant or terrorist designation issues, a number of evidentiary issues would arise.
The basis of the case against Mohammed lies in his alleged confession, and a volume of documentary evidence that was taken when his hideout was raided and he was apprehended. According to the verbatim transcript of Combatant Status Review Tribunal Hearing for Mohammed, a preponderance of the evidence against Mohammed is circumstantial. His apprehension was accompanied by the seizure of a number of items, including computer hard drives. The hard drives contained, among other items, information about the four flights used in the September 11th attacks including codes, airline names, flight numbers, pilot names and background information, and the names of the hijackers. The drive also contained pictures of the nineteen hijackers. The drive also contained a document that had the pilots license fees for Muhammad Atta (a known September 11th highjacker) and a number of other hijackers. The drive also contained transcripts of a chat session with at least one of the hijackers. While compelling, this evidence is not direct evidence of Mohammeds actual conspiracy with the hijackers. Such direct evidence would feature video or audio recordings of conversations that directly furthered the conspiracy, or, in the alternative a statement by other conspirators implicating Mohammed. Despite popular conceptions, however, circumstantial evidence is as valid in court as direct evidence. Short of confession, there is often little direct evidence connecting an individual to a particular crime, and absent direct evidence, prosecutors often rely on circumstantial evidence. The nature of the evidence in this case may not individually offer proof beyond a reasonable doubt of Mohammads involvement, taken collectively, they offer more than a sufficiency of proof. The caveat in this case is that the evidence located on the hard disk drive would have to be connected directly to the defendant. The only information we have about how it was obtained is that it was seized when the suspect was apprehended. The suspect offered a witness who would make an offer of proof that the residence entered and computers seized did not belong to the defendant. In this hearing, this evidence was disallowed as irrelevant, but in a criminal proceeding, it would be admissible as exculpatory.

With respect to his confession, this was allegedly made to the news organization called Al Jazeera in 2002. The statements made by a defendant against his own interest to a third party that is not subject to privilege, is admissible as incriminating evidence. While the defendant himself cannot be forced to testify against his own interest, statements he made outside of court that tend to prove his culpability are an exception to the hearsay rule as they are considered to be admissions against interest. Mohammad made statements claiming that he was tortured by the CIA in 2003. If duress were used to obtain any evidence, such evidence would be inadmissible under the exclusionary rule, and any evidence obtained as a result of that statement would also be excluded as fruit of the poisonous tree. There is no offer of proof that the suspects incriminated himself during the alleged torture, or that the statements that he made during the Combatants Hearing were in any way coerced. In most criminal proceedings, even the implications of such impropriety would compel a trial judge to exclude the defendants own statements, but given the nature and volume of corroborating evidence, such exclusion would be unlikely in this case.

Another issue with this case, were it treated as a regular criminal trial,  is venue. Holding such a trial in the venue in which the attack occurred would lead to enormous difficulties in obtaining a jury of unbiased observers. However, a change of venue within the United States would also be problematic, since the incident had profound emotional impact upon many potential jurors across the nation. Given that the nature of the jury pool is unlikely to be altered significantly by a change in venue, the case is best adjudicated in the jurisdiction where the incident took place.

Given the circumstances and evidence in this case, and the fact that the suspect seems to take pride in the connection he holds to the events, and would therefore be unlikely to refute the evidence on its merits, the likelihood is that he would be found guilty. Since the charge is the murder of almost three thousand people, it is likely that a guilty verdict would lead to a death sentence. In the case that the prosecutors are unable to link the computer evidence to the defendant, and the incriminating statements of the defendant are somehow repressed by the court, it is marginally possible that a jury may find insufficient evidence to convict Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.

Given that possibility, no matter how slim, relying on a regular criminal court to secure a conviction would not be in the best interest of the government to pursue Khalid Sheikh Mohammed as a normal citizen. Having been classified as an enemy combatant is more likely to be subject to military justice. The rules of evidentiary gathering are much vaguer in these types of investigations.  According to provisions laid out by executive order, the treatment of enemy combatants does not hold much of the same limitations for prosecution as do those for a regular civilian defendant. Such persons are not entitled to public indictment, filing of criminal charges, right to counsel or independent review of the evidence against him or her.  While subsequent high court decisions reversed many of these elements, including the right to counsel and requirement of habeas corpus, at the time of Khalid Sheikh Mohammeds detention and designation as an enemy combatant, these limitations did not exist, nor are they applied retroactively.

Such specific and defendant-friendly rules of evidence have not been applied to enemy combatants.  Historically, the civil rights of citizens have been routinely suspended during times of War. Japanese-Americans were interned with no evidence, and denied habeas corpus during WWII. During the Civil War, Abraham Lincoln detained U.S. citizens without warrant, evidence or charge to protect Federal Troops moving through Maryland.

    Given the history of American jurisprudence during Wartime, and the evidentiary pattern of the case against Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the better safe than sorry approach would likely be best for prosecuting this individual. The acts that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was responsible for are sufficiently inhumane, brutal, and arbitrary that no sense of justice in the abstract should prevent the United States from exacting a swift and total retribution against him.
 Annotated Bibliography

Pereira, C.  Chavkin, N. (2008)  Habeas Corpus and  Enemy Combatants Social Education, Vol. 72 (5) Pg. 236-248.
   
This article is a review of the legal standing that enemy combatants, or persons so designated between late 2001 and 2005 have been treated in federal court rulings.  The article reviews a number of cases addressed by the courts that flowed from complaints filed by various enemy combatants that were denied substantive due process while under incarceration at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba. The article notes that a number of citizens who suffered from similar denials of due process during wars, specifically during WWII and the Civil War were found by the courts two have been treated illegally. In the cases mentioned, however, these rulings came well after the fact. Regarding the current war, thee cases reviewed in this article are Rasul v. Bush , Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, Rumsfeld v. Padilla, Hamdan v. Rumsfeld and Al-Marri v. Pucciarelli. These cases, decided between 2004 and 2008, illustrate the evolution of the Courts opinion regarding the treatment of detainees at Guantanamo Bay. In the earlier cases, the Court tended to side with the government in denying habeas corpus and other procedural rights to enemy combatants who were not U.S. citizens, but continued to uphold those rights for U.S. citizens captured in battle in Afghanistan and Iraq. By 2008, however, the Court had balked at administration attempts to remove all enemy combatants from the jurisdiction of Federalk Courts, and in so doing, opened the door for many of these detainees, some who had spent years in incarceration without explanation, a chance to file petitions of habeas corpus. The article is relevant to the examination of the Mohammed case, since Mohammed was designated as an enemy combatant, and his status as such is the subject of a portion of the work above.

Parrini, M.  Williams, C. (2005) Enemy Combatants and the Courts Social Education, Vol. 69,(2) Pg. 103-110.

This article examines similar issues to the one presented in the Pereira, C.  Chavkin, N. article. Unlike this other article, this work addresses deficiencies in the Supreme Courts rulings on some procedural issues other than habeas corpus with respect to the rights of enemy combatants. Some questions unaddressed by the courts, according to this article, include the time frame, during which a designated enemy combatant may invoke a sixth amendment right to counsel,  how long a detainee may be kept without a trial given the indefinite nature of the war on terror, and which courts, military or civilian, have jurisdiction over the status challenges of enemy combatants.

This article does make mention of evidentiary problems associated with the classification of enemy combatants. In this article it is noted that the courts rejected evidence derived from statements that may have been coerced, and has fallen in favor of the totality of such evidence being reviewed by a neutral party.
The article is relevant to the paper about the Mohammed case because it addresses evidentiary issues specifically with respect to enemy combatants, and offers some insight as to whether certain elements of evidence in the Mohammed case would be admissible given his status as an enemy combatant.

Verbatim Transcript of Combatant Review Tribunal for Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (2007) Retrieved December 7th, 2009 from Cable News Network website

As the title suggests, this document puts forth the evidence that was used to designate Khalid Sheikh Mohammed as an enemy combatant. This evidence also serves as the basis of any criminal case against Mohammed for the murders of the civilians in the September 11th, 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center and other targets in the United States. The document discusses evidence that consists largely of documentation found on a computer in Mohammeds possession at the time of his apprehension. The computer included such details as the flight information of the targeted flights, the names of persons known to be hijackers, photographs of each of the hijackers, documentation of the fees invoked for the pilots licenses for the hijackers, and transcripts of conversations between hijackers. Additionally, the board commented that Mohammed had confessed to the Al-Jazeera news agency in 2002, telling of his masterminding of the 911 plot. The document also notes the panels rejection of certain exculpatory evide3nce, most compelling of which is a wit ness who claimed that the computer containing the vast majority of the evidence obtained, did not in fact belong to Mohammed. This document is relevant to the discussion of the evidence in the Khalid Sheikh Mohammed case as it enumerates most of the evidence that might be heard by a jury in a criminal proceeding.

Weisenberger, Glen  (1999) Evidence Myopia The Failure To See The Federal Rules Of Evidence As A Codification Of The Common Law William and Mary Law Review, Vol. 40, (5) pg. 1539-1567

This article, while primarily a discussion of the status of the f4ederal rules of evidence as a statutory construction, enumerates and evaluates many components of the rules of evidence. Included   in this discussion is the use and application of the exclusionary rule, and hearsay. Hearsay and its exceptions are an area of particular emphasis. The article discusses admission against interest, dying declaration and other circumstantial exceptions to the hearsay rule. It also lays out the guidelines denoted in the federal rules of evidence for the exclusion of evidence obtained in violation of due process. These discussions are relevant to the topic of the paper because they can be applied to the fact pattern of the Khalid Sheikh Mohammed case in order to judge the admissibility of the evidence at hand against Mohammed.

This brief paper discusses the federal and state court systems in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, and finally concludes by upholding the need for such a dual court system.
 Court Structure In The State of Georgia

This paper discusses the structure of the federal court and the state court systems in the State of Georgia. The capital of Georgia is Atlanta, and that is where most superior courts are situated.

A.    Federal Court Structure
    There are three federal court districts in the State of Georgia  Northern District of Georgia (N.D. Ga.), Middle District of Georgia (M.D. Ga.) and Southern District of Georgia (S.D. Ga.). While the Northern District, headquartered at Atlanta serves forty-six counties, and is divided into four divisions, the Middle District, headquartered at Macon serves sixty-nine counties and is divided into seven divisions. The Southern District is headquartered at Augusta, serves thirty-four counties and is divided into six divisions.
    The appeals from these District Courts are heard by the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit (11th Cir.), which is also located in Atlanta. In addition to hearing appeals from the District Courts of Georgia, the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit is also the federal court of appeals for the federal districts in the states of Alabama and Florida.
    Appeals from the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit are heard by the Court of last resort for federal matters  the Supreme Court of the United States, located in Washington D.C.

B.    State Court Structure
    The state Courts in Georgia are arranged circuit-wise. The State is divided into 49 judicial circuits. The Georgia Trial Court system is composed of a number of courts, depending on the pecuniary interest involved in civil matters or the gravity of offence in criminal matters. For example, the Magistrate Courts have original jurisdiction over all civil claims of 15,000 or less and certain minor criminal offences. Superior Courts in Georgia exist circuit-wise and serve as the backbone of the trial court system in Georgia. The Superior Courts have exclusive jurisdiction over certain matters, and general trial court jurisdiction. There is another level between the Superior courts and Magistrate courts called the State Courts which have original jurisdiction over all civil claims, regardless of the amount claimed, unless the Superior Court has jurisdiction over them. The Georgia Trial Court system is therefore the first level in the state court structure in the state of Georgia.
    The appeals from these various trial courts are heard by the Court of Appeals, located in Atlanta, which is a court of general appellate jurisdiction. However, this jurisdiction is limited because matters such as constitutionality of statutes, construction of wills, murder, election contests, habeas corpus and land title disputes, have been excluded from the courts appellate jurisdiction.
    The Supreme Court of Georgia, located in Atlanta, is the highest Court in the State of Georgia. It is the final court of appeal, as also is bestowed with the function of general superintendence of the judiciary and bar in the State of Georgia. Additionally, the Supreme Court may answer any question of law from any state or federal appellate court and may review by certiorari cases in the Court of Appeals which are of gravity or great public importance.

C.    Need for a Dual Court Structure
    The United States Constitution is a federal one. Laws made by the Congress are federal laws applicable to all the states of the United States, whereas laws made by the state legislature are applicable to the State of Georgia alone. Therefore, it becomes imperative to try legal disputes and controversies arising out of those two separate sets of laws by two separate sets of courts. The state judicial system is in a better system to examine the specific needs of the state, and it becomes important that the system is decentralized and made State-specific. The system achieves not only greater efficiency, but the federal structure of the United States is maintained.

I attempt to analyze an article by New York Times columnist Bob Herbert (Kleck) in which he advocates gun control and does so with suitable references and statistical data.
THE ARGUMENTS
     Herbert begins his piece with small tit-bits of incidents and news headlines which show how dangerous carrying a gun could be. It is well established that the most prone age towards gun related hazards is childhood and teenage. Apart from that the article doesnt deal much with the adult psychology behind carrying misusing a gun. When he gives the example of Jacob Larson, he makes it clear that it is because of the boys carelessness that the boy dies. Further, all these deathssuicideshomicides happen due to lack of knowledge and lack of guidance.  From there he treads on to how America is unconcerned or unperturbed about the horror gun-violence in inflicting on the country. He says that the violence is aggravated due to the widespread availability of guns in the country.
From there, he takes examples of bizarre incidents where mentally unstable people are on a killing spree. He gives example of Phil Spector, who kills actress Lana Clarkson. One needs to understand that he could have killed her through other means as well the non-presence of gun wouldnt have helped much. Of course, Herbert explains this well when he terms guns as easily available.
Again, he takes the example of John Muhammed and Lee Malvo. He makes a strong point here where he says that their least concern was to get a semiautomatic rifle. This makes sense as this is the root of the problem. When we advocate gun-control, what we forget is that there are still places means to get a gun easily.

MOVING FROM HOMICIDES 
Herberts gradual progression to the other areas of concern is apt and much needed. The article becomes a bit heavy on homicides and ignorant murders.
His statistical evidence is strong and makes for a gripping point. He says that more than 12,000 people are murdered annually in the U.S.
He interestingly points out that many murders also take place due to shooting by the Police. When such a point is risen, it makes one think about how safe heshe is when the custodian is charged of such a heavy crime. So how does one account to be safe By carrying a gun himself Probably, Herbert wouldnt like the idea at all.
He then takes in stride the issue of medical insurance and expenses. While there are murders happening at one point, there are victims who lead a painful life. This very strongly holds reason for gun-control. But, again one cannot base hisher opinion on such mishaps.

AMBIGUITIES -
He again comes around to advocate for teenagers and childrens death. This seems to me a very microscopic view of the entire issue. Though I agree and understand that children and teenagers are most prone to gunshots and mishaps, there is certain thought which should be given to this area. If it is children or teenagers who are more prone to the evils of the gun, we need to understand the reason why. Clearly the article doesnt delve into the same much. It just moves in roundabout manner to blame how the gun is killing everyone mindlessly. It just becomes a transfer epithet. The people are not blamed much but the steel cold weapon is.

OMMISSIONS -
Undoubtedly, the most important thing to be done is to understand what leads to such incidents and mishaps. One very important issue is the mindset of people. Of course, teenagers and children suffer from great insecurity and problems which lead them to such bizarre step. It is unquestionable that the society has changed, and its due course has made mankind savage and indifferent. This indifference causes major accidents. What Herbert argues for is valid, but owing to his journalism background, he sways too much in favor of facts and figures.
 
ALTERNATIVES -
Herberts article is something which will raise many eyebrows but then it stops at that. Nothing or nobody will stop these gunfights or mishaps. What is further more interesting is to note that if the widespread availability of guns are restricted, what will happen to civilians If the miscreants know that their victims are helpless, they will continue the killing spree, perhaps more brutally than ever. What is important thus, is to understand that there should be stringent laws, which make a civilian powerful but at the same time more careful. Guns should not be available to everyone. Also the bullets should be licensed and there should be thorough checking system to know where every bullet is going.

Herbert makes a very interesting read, especially when he mentions about the vigilance about shampoos in airports and the carelessness about guns and arms. This article seems a bit heavy on statistics and incidents and a bit weak on reasoning.