Terror deliberations
My blog's third birthday came and went a couple weeks ago, and I didn't even notice. What I do notice now, though, is that I've averaged about eight blog entries a month since March 2003. That number does not impress me, even when I consider the couple months I basically boycotted my own blog due to spam issues. Those issues stopped when I closed comments, but that daily frustrates me because I like feedback and interaction, whether good or bad.I've been thinking recently about the fact that my blogging is irregular, and that I don't even post about the big things going on in my life. Instead, I post about things like Ferrari crashes (that guy is still in custody, by the way) and Starbucks' marketing, which is a daily sight for me now that I've set up temporary shop in a Starbucks across from federal court.
For instance, it's been over a month since I last mentioned the terrorism trial I've been covering. The case has a lot of national implications, and even the judge said there is no precedent for the case. Most of my last nine weeks have been spent commuting several days a week to and from Sacramento in rush-hour traffic, meaning that I have to leave around 7:45 a.m. to be on the safe side. Now the schedule is being set by jurors who are in deliberations. If their latest questions and requests are any indication, the verdicts won't come quickly.
Covering the case has certainly been a new experience for me. Until now, I had very little federal criminal knowledge, and my only federal courtroom coverage had involved a civil case. Of course, a lot of it is very similar to state court, but it's not the same. State rules are on a completely different numbering system, as are charges. And, as I've certainly learned from this case, it's a federal crime to lie to the FBI, while that's not a state crime. In other words, if you're going to talk to law enforcement, it's better to talk to local police.
I'll end this post with one more link, this one to an LA Times editorial (use BugMeNot if you need free registration) about the ongoing Zacarias Moussaoui trial and terrorism in general. In case you live under a log, or you're reading this years after his name has faded from the public spotlight, he's the only person to have been charged in connection with the 9/11 attacks. He pleaded guilty, but then went on trial for a jury to determine if he should get the death penalty or life in prison. The editorial compares Moussaoui's trial to other cases that have been delayed for any number of reasons, some of which led to lawsuits regarding a defendant's right to a speedy trial.
As the Times points out, Moussaoui got his trial and his day in court, just as every defendant should. Despite all sorts of kinks in the case, it has followed the law and our country's security is none the worse. The government should give the detainees their day in court, so the public can see what's really at stake. If the cases are as serious as the government says they are, that will speak more loudly for the war on terror than any politician ever can.
Posted by Layla at 11:13 AM, April 16, 2006
— Comments —