 |
 |
|||||
 |
||||||
|
||||||
 |
||||||
| FBI Does It Again
by John M. Curtis Copyright May 11, 2001
Pushing irony over the top, it was McVeigh’s admitted hatred toward the FBI—with its bungling of Ruby Ridge and Waco—that motivated his truck bombing of the Arthur P. Murrah federal building on April 19, 1995. First, it’s the FBI’s painstaking investigation that led to McVeigh’s arrest and conviction. Now, it’s the FBI’s utter incompetence that’s responsible for staying his execution. Go figure? With alleged Los Alamos traitor Wen Ho Lee and renegade FBI agent Robert Philip Hanssen still fresh on peoples’ minds, the FBI didn’t need another black eye. “Shocked is a mild word, considering this situation,” said Kathleen Treanor, who lost her 4-year-old daughter and in-laws in the bombing, and now faces what feels like an interminable delay. “I’m appalled. The FBI knew from the very beginning that this was a huge case. How could they have possibly made a mistake this huge?” wondered Treanor, still in disbelief over the FBI’s recent disclosure. While the new evidence seems “inconsequential” to some, it’s breathed new life into McVeigh’s attorneys trying to thwart his execution. Though McVeigh waived his rights to further appeal, recent developments might return him to his senses. Resigned to his fate after his conviction on June 2, 1997 and sentencing on August 14, 1997, McVeigh seemed almost suicidal, fighting his attorneys and resisting help—refusing to rot in prison. Recent events may have changed his tune, now that the unrepentant, stoic decorated ex-Gulf War vet sees an opportunity for buying more time. “He is keeping all of his options open,” said McVeigh’s attorney Rob Nigh to the press in Terre Haute, Ind., after Ashcroft announced he was delaying the execution—preempting U.S. District Court Judge Richard P. Matsch in Denver from issuing the stay. “He [McVeigh] has indicated in the past that he did not want to delay . . . He’s willing to take a fresh look and evaluate the information,” said Nigh, suggesting that McVeigh might press ahead with legal challenges—including the possibility of asking for a new trial. Despite McVeigh’s verified confessions, the FBI’s failure to turn over even “inconsequential” evidence is a disturbing development. Announcing the delay, Ashcroft tried to reassure victims’ families that his action was only a temporary glitch. “There is no doubt in my mind, or anyone’s mind, about the guilt of Timothy McVeigh,” said Ashcroft, but, simultaneously, he indicated, “It is now clear that the FBI failed to comply fully,” referring to the prosecution’s failure to comply with the 1963 Brady rule requiring reciprocal discovery. “I want justice carried out fully,” said Ashroft, giving the impression that something improper took place. Even President Bush concurred that Ashcroft “made the right decision. Today is an example of the system being fair.” But was the system fair when McVeigh’s attorneys were trying to mount a defense during the discovery phase of the trial? Facing execution, even despicable murderers like McVeigh are entitled to due process—even if it delays the inevitable by a few months. “We are going beyond the requirements of the law,” said Ashcroft, suggesting that reciprocal discovery is not required in most criminal prosecutions. In McVeigh’s case, both parties agreed to reciprocal discovery. Painful as it seems, the rule of law must prevail in McVeigh’s case, just as legal technicalities frequently get murderers and convicted felons off the hook. It’s not up to President Bush, Atty. Gen. Ashcroft, the trial judge or anyone else other than the original trier of fact—namely, the jury—to make that determination. Even ex-jurors cannot make judgments of fact in hindsight. McVeigh juror Dough Carr, 45, wasn’t moved by the potential new evidence. “The prosecution proved everything to me,” he said, “If there was something left out that’s in those files, I don’t think it was that significant.” Trials—like elections—are sacrosanct events that cannot be second-guessed or tampered with after the fact. It’s not up to anyone other than the original jury to evaluate evidence and render an unbiased verdict. McVeigh’s unequivocal guilt—confessions or not—has little to do with our system of justice. Only a jury or judge in a pristine courtroom can administer justice under the Constitution. No matter how angry the mob, they cannot pass judgment and take the law into their own hands—though the new evidence isn’t likely to reverse McVeigh’s fortunes. McVeigh shouldn’t walk because of FBI negligence, but he should be granted enough time to weigh remaining options. Guilty or not, he cannot be lynched by public opinion or an agency of the U.S. government. Reviewing reams of new evidence—no matter how relevant or inconsequential—doesn’t erase the fact that the government broke the rules and must pay the price. As Ashcroft noted, the death penalty is “the ultimate sentence in the federal system of justice,” and cannot be taken lightly. McVeigh’s guilt or innocence has nothing to do with receiving a fair trial under the rule of law. Even McVeigh’s own admission of guilt and death wish can’t influence the administration of justice. Courts don’t flog or euthanize convicted felons because they wish to be celebrated martyrs: They determine appropriate verdicts and sentences—including the death penalty. Debating the death penalty and public executions isn’t correlated with technical snafus under the rule of law. Letting McVeigh fry under these circumstances—without letting him play out his legal options—immortalizes his contention that the government routinely violates its own laws. About the Author John M. Curtis is editor of OnlineColumnist.com and columnist for the Los Angeles Daily Journal. He’s director of a Los Angeles think tank specializing in political consulting and strategic public relations. He’s the author of Dodging The Bullet and Operation Charisma. |
||||||
aterial or not, the FBI and Justice Department must swallow its own medicine for violating the rules of reciprocal discovery in the infamous Oklahoma City bombing trial: McVeigh should be given more time. While victims’ families seek justice, the rule of law must supersede the need to watch Timothy J. McVeigh die by lethal injection at the Federal prison in Terre Haute, Ind. “It is my responsibility to protect the integrity of our criminal justice system,” said Atty. Gen. John Ashcroft, “Therefore, I have made a decision to postpone the execution of Timothy McVeigh for one month from this day, so that the execution would occur on June 11, 2001 . . . ,” giving McVeigh’s attorneys enough time in which to review new evidence and calculate options. Withholding over 3000 pages of evidence, the FBI botched another sensational case, blaming the snafu on a computer glitch, preventing field offices from flagging the documents for discovery. Taking another hit to its credibility, the FBI threw a monkey wrench into the Bureau of Prison’s meticulous plans for McVeigh’s execution scheduled for Wednesday, May 16.|
Home || Articles || Books || The Teflon Report || Reactions || About Discobolos This site designed, developed and hosted by the experts at ©1999-2012 Discobolos Consulting Services, Inc. |
