Posted a while back on legal developments in the United States' case against
Charles McArthur Emmanuel, also known as Charles "Chuckie" Taylor, Jr., in recognition that the defendant's father is former Liberian President
Charles Taylor, himself facing "restart" on January 7, 2008, of his war crimes/crimes
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/8ce82/8ce82b68a2a58364ef474e5b7d1d34cf456da982" alt=""
against humanity trial before the Special Court for Sierra Leone. (See
here for developments last week in the trial of Taylor père.) Notable was the rejection by U.S. District
Judge Cecilia M. Altonaga of defense objections that
18 U.S.C. § 2340A, the statute that implements U.S. ratification of the
Convention Against Torture, was unconstitutionally vague.
While awaiting Emmanuel's trial in Miami, also set to begin early next year,
check out this
commentary comparing the anti-vagueness arguments that U.S. Department of Justice attorneys made in
Emmanuel with the pro-vagueness arguments their superiors've made in the course of the post-9/11
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/a7871/a78719d4acb1c5b0b429bd119b268cdc9763a6fd" alt=""
campaign against terrorism (arguments recently
echoed, in defense of the testimony of newly inaugurated U.S. Attorney General
Michael B. Mukasey, by former
Mary Jo White (above left, a Manhattan-based former U.S. Attorney). Author of the critique is
Elizabeth de la Vega (right), whose 20-plus-year career as a federal prosecutor included membership on the Organized Crime Strike Force and heading the San Jose branch of the Office of the U.S. Attorney.