Fwd: Re: [sklyarov-chicago] [nick@zork.net: [CrackMonkey] Genius!]

[Steve Stearns]

On Wed, 25 Jul 2001, Michael Cannon wrote:

> Yep...it's called _habaeus_corpus_ .  He was held
> incommunicado, without the ability retain or to speak
> to counsel (until today) (Constitution and Bill of
> Rights - the due process clauses and the Miranda
> decision) or the members of his Consular delegation
> (the Geneva Protocols)

Granted, I've never been arrested, but what is the actual common procedure
as implemented?  The letter of the law, its interpretation, and its
implementation never quite interesect.  Is this something that normally
happens or is this a rather unusual circumstance (i.e. implying some
malicious intent by the government).  Particularly, is this normal in the
case of foreign nationals (perhaps delays becuase of consultation with the
state department, etc).  If I recall correctly he was given an arraignment
hearing in vegas shortly after arrest, right?

What I'm wondering here is whether this is an angle worth pursuing in the
court of public opinion, or should we focus on the notion that the arrest
was a bad choice in the first place regardless of how he was treated after
arrest.  Now if his treatment after the fact is extrordinary, then I think
making a point of it could help this case.  If on the other hand, it is
something common to our system, it dillutes our message.  Basically, if
one can refute the legitimacy of the claim that the legal system is being
harsh on him in some sort of exaggerated or malicious way (irregardless of
his actual arres), it's easier to make the logical leap that the rest of
our claims are exaggerated.

---Steve