Continuation Part 2 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[CDHost]

A single Senator

So I understand how governments can "bend the rules" if it serves their interests. In the case of Amanda Knox, though, I can't see any clear reason why the US would want to use any of its carrots or sticks to try to influence the judicial process - it's just too small an issue, with no international connotations, to bring any of the big weapons out. Similarly, I can't see any one politician (Cantwell, for example) trying to hold the US executive to ransom over this case - the risks and rewards just wouldn't add up in this case, in my view.

And this is where I'm asserting you fail to understand the US system. First off we agree on the executive branch so lets take that off the table. As for as Cantwell, US Senators don't see riders as holding the US executive ransom they see it as directing the executive. I.E. the purpose of the executive branch is to bring to fruition the desires and aims of the congress. Her job is to tell the executive what to do. In a sort of ideal model the executive branch would be filled with people with no particular policy positions who are administrators of the opinions of congress.

Cantwell has already pulled out a fairly big weapon she has issued an official statement, a warning if you will. Sitting Senators very rarely comment on verdicts of foreign trials, this was a big gun. It happened. The Italians have now blown off a sitting US Senator. Just to give you examples of a single senator recently: Senator Jim Bunning objected to how unemployment benefits were being funded, Harry Reid (majority leader) blew him off and Bunning used his office and 1.2m were thrown off the rolls for a few weeks. The START treaty was almost derailed because Senator John Kyl wanted to attach the treaty to a nuclear modernization program. Senator Jim DeMint was in favor of the coup in Honduras and thus gutted the administration's ability to oppose the new government.

One US Senator is a very big deal. Amanda Knox and Meredith Kercher are nobodies. If I were Giorgio Napolitano I would have pardoned Knox as a matter of curtsy once Cantwell raised a public objection. The only question is whether Cantwell actual cares, or if this was just a proforma objection because people in her state were enraged by the verdict. But I think Italy should have called her and confirmed she's not honestly upset before assuming this is no big deal. The assumption when a Senator speaks in an unusual way or on an unusual topic should be that it is a big deal. And I understand that Europeans, because they have a very different system, don't grok this. As an aside IMHO Israel is the only country not in the Americas that actually understands our system.

In many ways the reason I'm interested in the Knox / Sollecito case is because the sorts of reactions are very unusual. For example when President Clinton raised objections to the caning of Michael Fay a super majority of Americans sided with Singapore thinking caning was a great idea for the punishment of vandalism. Even things like Rachel Corrie where you basically had an American executed for trespassing are controversial. Amanda Knox where Americans are unified in favor of a criminal defendant held by a friendly government is really really rare.

 

[Withnail1969]

One US Senator is a very big deal. Amanda Knox and Meredith Kercher are nobodies. If I were Giorgio Napolitano I would have pardoned Knox as a matter of curtsy once Cantwell raised a public objection. The only question is whether Cantwell actual cares, or if this was just a proforma objection because people in her state were enraged by the verdict. But I think Italy should have called her and confirmed she's not honestly upset before assuming this is no big deal. The assumption when a Senator speaks in an unusual way or on an unusual topic should be that it is a big deal. And I understand that Europeans, because they have a very different system, don't grok this. As an aside IMHO Israel is the only country not in the Americas that actually understands our system.

I'm not sure what you're expecting to happen if the Italian justice system doesn't release Amanda. I happen to believe she will be released, but I really don't see what the American government can or will do to Italy if she isn't.

And why should America's allies run their internal affairs to suit American Senators? If that's what you're suggesting they do, then they aren't allies, but slaves.

 

[Matthew Best]

One US Senator is a very big deal.

Try telling that to George Galloway.

 

[CDHost]

Try telling that to George Galloway.

Sorry I'm losing you here. I know who George Galloway is, but I don't understand what he has to do with one Senator being a big deal.

I'm going to take a guess here that you mean Senator Coleman naming him as profiting from the Iraqi sanctions leading to him testifying before the US senate threatening to charge him with perjury.... In which case I'd say that's a perfect example. Coleman was a huge proponent of invading Iraq during his 2002 campaign and his win over Wellstone was one of the things (many things) that shifted opinion towards an invasion.

Sure Coleman didn't like Galloway and Galloway got the better of him heads up in the debate. Galloway got a few days of good press coverage. But Iraq still got invaded, Kofi Annan is out at the UN. The oil for food program is officially seen as having been a failure for the UN which will be reflected in future US policy. Coleman's friends took billions from the Coalition Provisional Authority.

(note for moderators: the connection to Knox is a discussion of Senator Cantwell's statement regarding Knox. This is all just examining similar examples by other senators)

 

[CDHost]

I'm not sure what you're expecting to happen if the Italian justice system doesn't release Amanda. I happen to believe she will be released, but I really don't see what the American government can or will do to Italy if she isn't.

And why should America's allies run their internal affairs to suit American Senators? If that's what you're suggesting they do, then they aren't allies, but slaves.

Exactly what Italy has always argued for, have a justice system that has international support. If every country can run its justice system however it sees fit, what is the basis of Italian opposition to the death penalty in the United States?

Italy the EU and the international standards of justice

 

[Matthew Best]

Well, I was just trying to say that despite a bunch of Senators (not just one) accusing Galloway of corruption, nothing at all came of it - Galloway flew voluntarily to the US (though there was no obligation on him to do so) to testify, but in every other respect ignored the wishes of the Senators. I don't think it had any adverse effect on his popularity - rather the opposite in fact. Hard is it may be to believe there are large swathes of the world where ignoring the edict of a US Senator actually makes you more popular, rather than less.

So a single senator may well not be a "big deal" in Italy.

 

[Alt+F4]

If I were Giorgio Napolitano I would have pardoned Knox as a matter of curtsy once Cantwell raised a public objection.

You must be kidding. This is not how the legal system works anywhere in the western world. Senator Cantwell has zero power over what happens in this case. She looked like a fool when she suggested the guilty verdict had something to do with anti-Americanism. She didn't even know that RS, an Italian national, was convicted by that same jury.

This sums up Cantwell's behavior well:

This is the worst kind of American behavior. It's not just exceptionalism, though that's clearly present in Cantwell's objection (this can't have been done by one of my own countrywomen!). Set aside, also, that the hypocrisy of an American Senator lecturing another country on the "harsh treatment" of a prisoner isn't going to endear us to anyone in Europe or the rest of the world. What really, really stinks of ugly Americanism is Cantwell's calculating decision to place politics above justice.

Who was this statement aimed at? Does anyone really think that Maria Cantwell is going to storm into Hillary Clinton's office, who's then going to storm into Silvio Berlusconi's office, and in so doing effect the immediate release of a smiling, innocent, cleared-of-all-charges Amanda Knox? No. So then: this statement isn't aimed at securing justice; it's not meant to get a better appeal for Amanda Knox. It is meant for the people of the state of Washington. Its goal is to remind them that, no matter where they go or what they do, their Senator will be with them.

Fine. All politics are local. Sadly, all statements released to the media are not -- and Cantwell's charge that the Italian justice system is flawed and the trial was tainted by anti-Americanism have certainly found their way to the very pool of citizens she's accusing. Rather than working to diffuse tensions between these countries, Cantwell is throwing fuel onto a dangerous blaze, in which a case best left to courts and juries could instead spark into a disagreement between nations. If her interest was justice, it would have been better served by behind-the-scenes work, not bold, generalizing statements.

linky: http://open.salon.com/blog/saturn_smith/2009/12/05/amanda_knox_sen_maria_cantwell_found_guilty

 

[billyryan]

Exactly. This whole issue of US State Dept intervention is a massive red herring. The US will not dare to inject itself into another ally country's judicial process, in the same was as it could never dare to inject itself into another ally country's executive or legislature processes. It has a duty to one of its citizens (Knox) to ensure that she is getting treated well and has proper legal representation, but that is absolutely as far as it goes.

Even if Knox fails in all her appeals (which isn't going to happen, but let's hypothesise ), the US authorities will absolutely make no public complaints. There may well have been private conversations between (e.g.) the US Ambassador to Rome and a senior judicial figure in Italy, but no coercion or even suggestion - that would be entirely improper, and way outside the US's remit. The conversation (if there even was one) would have gone no further than a reminder that the outcome of the appeal process is being closely followed in the US and UK. There will have been no threat of trade restrictions or reduced military cooperation (or anything else) - that just doesn't happen in the case of the prosecution of a private citizen for a crime which is not state-related. And it won't happen here, no matter what happens in the appeals.

Lets fast forward a little LJ to late 2011 and the whole sorry mess gets laid bare of how Amanda and Raffaele were framed by Mignini and the Peruvian police and despite the best efforts of the Judiciary to bury this case the have no option only to acquit

Amanda arrives back in the US where she is interviewed on Larry King, Fox news, Oprah,in 2012 election year she tells a now very sympathetic audience how she was framed and abused how her parents pleaded with Hillary Clinton and President Obama for help but neither wanted to know and turned their backs,while they are trying to convince the American people of what they will do for them individually and collectively to get re elected

I know a lot of innocent people have been convicted and executed in the US without any consequences for anybody,but their is always a first time,if the Peruvian judiciary fail in their attempt to leave some doubt as to her innocence a huge proportion of the US media believe she is innocent and will be clamouring for interviews on release she could make a very good impression and the public could warm to her

 

[Agatha]

There is a whole world of "public opinion" outside the US, though, billyryan. And it's Perugian, not Peruvian - AK and RS are in Italy, not South America.

Bringing American pressure to bear on the Italian government will only backfire, in my opinion. As a rule, in Europe people do not take kindly to being told what to do by America.

 

[Kaosium]

And this is where I'm asserting you fail to understand the US system. First off we agree on the executive branch so lets take that off the table. As for as Cantwell, US Senators don't see riders as holding the US executive ransom they see it as directing the executive. I.E. the purpose of the executive branch is to bring to fruition the desires and aims of the congress. Her job is to tell the executive what to do. In a sort of ideal model the executive branch would be filled with people with no particular policy positions who are administrators of the opinions of congress.

Cantwell has already pulled out a fairly big weapon she has issued an official statement, a warning if you will. Sitting Senators very rarely comment on verdicts of foreign trials, this was a big gun. It happened. The Italians have now blown off a sitting US Senator. Just to give you examples of a single senator recently: Senator Jim Bunning objected to how unemployment benefits were being funded, Harry Reid (majority leader) blew him off and Bunning used his office and 1.2m were thrown off the rolls for a few weeks. The START treaty was almost derailed because Senator John Kyl wanted to attach the treaty to a nuclear modernization program. Senator Jim DeMint was in favor of the coup in Honduras and thus gutted the administration's ability to oppose the new government.

One US Senator is a very big deal. Amanda Knox and Meredith Kercher are nobodies. If I were Giorgio Napolitano I would have pardoned Knox as a matter of curtsy once Cantwell raised a public objection. The only question is whether Cantwell actual cares, or if this was just a proforma objection because people in her state were enraged by the verdict. But I think Italy should have called her and confirmed she's not honestly upset before assuming this is no big deal. The assumption when a Senator speaks in an unusual way or on an unusual topic should be that it is a big deal. And I understand that Europeans, because they have a very different system, don't grok this. As an aside IMHO Israel is the only country not in the Americas that actually understands our system.

In many ways the reason I'm interested in the Knox / Sollecito case is because the sorts of reactions are very unusual. For example when President Clinton raised objections to the caning of Michael Fay a super majority of Americans sided with Singapore thinking caning was a great idea for the punishment of vandalism. Even things like Rachel Corrie where you basically had an American executed for trespassing are controversial. Amanda Knox where Americans are unified in favor of a criminal defendant held by a friendly government is really really rare.

I disagree, Senator Cantwell will not try any 'Boland Amendment' type powerplay on a president of her own party who just found himself with lots of new 'friends' surrounding him in that 'other body.' It would be political suicide for her. Your example of Michael Fay was a sitting President and he failed to achieve his aims, despite having two dozen senators on board, if you read your link.

The President, through the State Department, manages foreign policy. The Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, which Cantwell is not on regardless, isn't about to do anything to embarrass a president of their own party either, and frankly I can't think of anything they could do that wouldn't come off as petty.

Italy is a military ally of the United States, I would be extremely surprised if the American government at any level did anything to humiliate them while the process is still ongoing, it's still at step one. Senator Cantwell stated her objections and made her position clear, that would seem to me all she could do at this point which is bring attention to the issue. I personally think she could have gone about that a different way, but at least she did note it as a concern which is what she owes her constituents.

I think you're mistaken about this but I really don't want to get too in depth arguing domestic politics with you. Once upon a time I cared a great deal about them, but I won't get fooled again. Thus I will 'issue my statement' and demur, much like the good Senator did.

 

[CoulsdonUK]

I believe Guede’s final appeal motivational report will be released prior to the re-examination DNA report, does anyone know whether Judge Micheli original findings that Meredith was murdered by more than one assailant was ever rejected in any of Guede’s appeals? Assuming the prosecution use any evidence from Guede’s confirmation would the defence team be able to argue against the final conclusions of the highest court in Italy?

 

[Withnail1969]

Exactly what Italy has always argued for, have a justice system that has international support. If every country can run its justice system however it sees fit, what is the basis of Italian opposition to the death penalty in the United States?

Italy the EU and the international standards of justice

I think it's fine for Italy to criticise America's justice system and for America to criticise Italy's system in general terms. I suppose I'm not even saying that there can't be pleas for mercy in particular cases as there sometimes are from Europeans in particular death penalty cases in the US.

It's just important that America isn't seen as pushing Italy around, I think, if we're to get a positive outcome for Amanda and Raffaele.

 

[CDHost]

You must be kidding. This is not how the legal system works anywhere in the western world. Senator Cantwell has zero power over what happens in this case.

Baloney. She has a great deal of power.

As for not how it works. George Bush's very first pardon, Kenneth Coplend was a request from a Senator. I could rattle off dozens more pardons. So yes this how it works in the western world.

She looked like a fool when she suggested the guilty verdict had something to do with anti-Americanism. She didn't even know that RS, an Italian national, was convicted by that same jury.

How do you know that? She most likely believed that the focus on RS came out of the focus on AK and that came out of Iman Rapito. Stop asserting things about the Senator's state of mind without any proof.

 

[Agatha]

How do you know that? She most likely believed that the focus on RS came out of the focus on AK and that came out of Iman [sic] Rapito. Stop asserting things about the Senator's state of mind without any proof.

You appear to be asserting belief about Sen Cantwell's reasoning, equally without proof.

 

[Matthew Best]

Baloney. She has a great deal of power.

Not in Italy.

 

[Withnail1969]

I believe Guede’s final appeal motivational report will be released prior to the re-examination DNA report, does anyone know whether Judge Micheli original findings that Meredith was murdered by more than one assailant was ever rejected in any of Guede’s appeals? Assuming the prosecution use any evidence from Guede’s confirmation would the defence team be able to argue against the final conclusions of the highest court in Italy?

Judge Micheli also found that Meredith was murdered at about 10:30 pm, leading to the rather awkward outcome that the victim was murdered twice, since Massei has her being murdered again at around 11:30 pm. Not only that, Massei's star witness the homeless heroin dealer Curatolo, gives Amanda and Raffaele a cast iron alibi for the first murder.

 

[Kaosium]

I believe Guede’s final appeal motivational report will be released prior to the re-examination DNA report, does anyone know whether Judge Micheli original findings that Meredith was murdered by more than one assailant was ever rejected in any of Guede’s appeals? Assuming the prosecution use any evidence from Guede’s confirmation would the defence team be able to argue against the final conclusions of the highest court in Italy?

This is something I truly do not understand. How can Rudy Guede's trial affect Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito? I know Mignini and Maresca said so, but what did they mean by that? Amanda and Raffaele's defense wasn't represented, were they? How could they be damned by something they couldn't contest?

I saw something that said it had to do with 'respect,' meaning those two expected the appeals court to 'respect' the decision of Rudy's court, thus somehow incorporate the concept that Rudy was convicted of being one of three participants in the crime, but why would that matter? As I recall Rudy wanted the separate trial, and he's the one with the reduced sentence, so how can the confirmation of that damn the two facing life?

 

[CDHost]

There is a whole world of "public opinion" outside the US, though, billyryan. And it's Perugian, not Peruvian - AK and RS are in Italy, not South America.

Bringing American pressure to bear on the Italian government will only backfire, in my opinion. As a rule, in Europe people do not take kindly to being told what to do by America.

Then how do you explain Donald Rumsfeld getting Belgium to change their universal jurisdiction laws. That was pure bullying, bare fisted. Belgium had a law and Rumsfeld made it clear there would substantial consequences if it wasn't changed and it was changed.

Cantwell is not a Secretary of Defense but by the same token she wouldn't be asking Italy to repeal the law against murder just release one little nobody. And I agree Belgium was pissed. The term "altes Europa" was frequently used as a source of pride. But at the end of the day the order of events was:

1) Law was passed the US didn't like
2) Sec of Defense flew over and made it clear the US was very unhappy
3) Law was quickly repealed

Further Italy's ruling party is opposed to the Knox verdict. There have 2 reps that have spoken against it. Girlanda has been very clear in his book that he sees the verdict as possibly reflecting a desire of the Italian left (regional government of Umbria) to embarras the Italian right (national government). So the national government is already distancing themselves they just haven't taken action because it hasn't been forced.

Why would Italy want to throw down over Amanda Knox? What's in it for them other than stupid stubbornness.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

the dark lady of Seattle: video of the police caravan

Wins what? It is the truth that is important. If they had a chance to examine the evidence in person, then it is best that they should do so. Seeing the actual evidence can make a difference. I doubt it would have made Mignini's footprint guy any smarter but the police computer dude would have done better working off photographs, in my opinion.

RoseMontague,

I almost lost my coffee when I read that. Here is another video clip in the days after the arrest. It looks as if Patrick is in the first car. There are a number of factual errors, such as Amanda's fingerprint in the room (!). I don't say that the police lied about this; I say that they were mistaken in their minds.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

To kill a mockingbird

Why the hell do you people care so much about this girl?

This erroneous decision is every bit as much about Raffaele Sollecito as it is about Amanda Knox.