|
Gitmo military tribunals - prosecuters now say; - "a process that appears to be rigged"
|
|
Topic Started: Aug 1 2005, 07:17 AM (307 Views)
|
|
somerled
|
Aug 1 2005, 07:17 AM
Post #1
|
Admiral MacDonald RN
- Posts:
- 19,451
- Group:
- Banned
- Member
- #62
- Joined:
- September 24, 2003
|
You can choose two voting options.
Some Clarifications for those who might need them : "They are lying." ==> the prosecuters who have made the complaints are lying. "We are being lied to" ==> by the administration and the Pentagon are lying. These are the the contexts I imply.
The story Prosecutors allege Guantanamo military commissions rigged (Breaking story 01/08/2005 from ABC 7:30 Report aired tonight)
- Quote:
-
Prosecutors allege Guantanamo military commissions rigged Reporter: Leigh Sales
KERRY O'BRIEN: Welcome to the program. Both the US and Australian governments have given repeated assurances that justice will be served for the hundreds of terrorist suspects held without trial at Guantanamo Bay, including Australian David Hicks. But startling admissions have surfaced from two of the military prosecutors who were assigned to the first cases. In emails obtained by the ABC, they've described the process as a "fraud" which is "rigged" to ensure convictions. While the Pentagon says an investigation found the prosecutors' allegations to be baseless, they still constitute some of the most alarming criticisms yet of the military justice process at Guantanamo Bay. This report from ABC North America correspondent, Leigh Sales.
LEIGH SALES: The 500 detainees here at Guantanamo Bay will get fair and open trials. That's the promise being given to the American people and the world.
DONALD RUMSFELD, US SECRETARY OF DEFENSE: The US has no desire to hold enemy combatants any longer than is absolutely necessary. Each detainee will have an opportunity to present information on his behalf.
GEORGE BUSH, US PRESIDENT: If I determine that it's in the national security interests of our great land to try by military commission those who make war on America, then we will do so.
US MILITARY SPOKESMAN: Those able to amongst themselves and each other. They do communicate. You can probably hear that in the background.
LEIGH SALES: Last year, before the first military commission started, the world's media was taken through Guantanamo where a brand new hearing room was proudly displayed. But behind the public assurances, the military prosecution team pulling the first cases together, was in disarray. Some of the officers were telling their superiors in the strongest of terms that the system was a travesty of justice.
GENE FIDELL, INSTITUTE OF MILITARY JUSTICE: The very fact that junior officers would take it upon themselves to memorialise the kinds of concerns and the kinds of harsh language they've used here is the type of thing that would be very disquieting and tends to lend credence to their assertions because officers don't do this casually.
LEIGH SALES: These emails obtained by the ABC show for the first time that severe concerns about the military commissions go right to the heart of the process. As you'll see, two prosecutors walked away from the system because they found it so Morley, ethically and professionally intolerable. The Guantanamo commissions have had many critics. Among them the British Government, the American Bar Association and the military defence lawyers assigned to the cases. But we now know the criticism also came from within. Prosecutors who'd seen all the evidence against detainees and were intimately involved in the process were rebelling. Major Rob Preston wrote to his commanding officer in March last year, just three months before Australian David Hicks was charged.
MAJOR ROBERT PRESTON (GRAPHICS ON SCREEN): "I consider the insistence on pressing ahead with cases that would be marginal, even if properly prepared, to be a severe threat to the reputation of the military justice system, and even a fraud on the American people - surely they don't expect that this fairly half-assed effort is all that we have been able to put together after all this time."
LEIGH SALES: His colleague, Captain John Carr, wrote a similar email a few days later.
CAPTAIN JOHN CARR (GRAPHICS ON SCREEN): "I expected there would be at least a minimal effort to establish a fair process and diligently prepare cases against significant accused. Instead, I find a half-hearted and disorganised effort to prosecute fairly low-level accused in a process that appears to be rigged."
GENE FIDELL: Yes, I think the documents do suggest that the cases may have been puffed for consumption of the public.
LEIGH SALES: Former military lawyer Gene Fidell has reviewed the chain of emails.
GENE FIDELL: The documents suggest a variety of shortcomings, including whether the management of the Defence Department was given the straight story as to the preparations that were going on, whether evidence was being destroyed. That's an assertion. Whether evidence was being turned over to the Defence that should have been turned over to Defence under American constitutional law. There are a number of other assertions.
LEIGH SALES: One of the most serious assertions is that the jury panel chosen to hear the cases are stacked. Captain Carr writes to his boss: "You've repeatedly said to the office that the review panel will be handpicked and will not acquit these detainees."
LEIGH SALES: Major Preston wrote of his ethical dilemma.
MAJOR PRESTON (GRAPHICS ON SCREEN): "I lie awake worrying about this every night, writing a motion saying that the process will be full and fair when you don't really believe it is kind of hard."
LEIGH SALES: In their emails, both prosecutors say they can't continue with their Guantanamo cases. A month later, transfers were granted and both are still serving as lawyers in the US military. They declined to be interviewed by the ABC, but the Pentagon maintains an internal investigation dismissed the allegations as based on misunderstandings, miscommunications and personality clashes. Defence official Brigadier Thomas Hemingway agreed to a radio interview only.
BRIGADIER GENERAL THOMAS HEMINGWAY: I think what we did was work on some restructuring in the office. There were some changes in the way cases were processed, but we found no evidence of any criminal misconduct. We found no evidence of any ethical violations.
LEIGH SALES: Is it correct that prosecutors were told that the military commission panel would be hand-picked and would not acquit the detainees?
BRIGADIER GENERAL THOMAS HEMINGWAY: Ah, I wasn't privy to any such allegation or statement. I can tell you that any such assertion is clearly incorrect.
LEIGH SALES: David Hicks' military lawyer says he's shocked by the content of the prosecutor's emails and hopes the Australian Government will ask the US for an explanation.
MAJOR MICHAEL MORI, DAVID HICKS' LAWYER: When you look at the system and how it is operating and you learn - look at the information that's just come out, I would hope that they would say, "Enough is enough."
PHILIP RUDDOCK, ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I have received assurances from them that they believe they have a substantial case.
LEIGH SALES: But you haven't actually seen it?
PHILIP RUDDOCK: I've talked to them about aspects of it, but I don't seek to bring my judgment to bear about whether or not it is substantial and nor do I ask my officials to do that.
LEIGH SALES: Today, back in Australia, Philip Ruddock is saying he wants more information.
PHILIP RUDDOCK: A military commission process was seen as appropriate to deal with unlawful combatants where intelligence issues need to be protected. If there are serious questions raised, I would want to explore them fully.
NICOLA ROXON, OPPOSITION ATTORNEY-GENERAL: He's been assuring the public that this is going to be a fail trial. Either he's been misleading the public or the US has been misleading him and we'd like to know which one it is.
LEIGH SALES: Melbourne barrister Lex Lasry , who was the Australian Law Council's official attorney at Guantanamo Bay, says the emails vindicate concerns he previously raised about the fairness of the military commissions.
LEX LASRY QC, LAW COUNCIL OBSERVER: I am concerned that people in senior prosecutorial positions at the military commissions have felt the need to express these kinds of criticisms of the process. That means there's some fundamental problem, which may well still exist.
LEIGH SALES: David Hicks' military commission is due to reconvene some time in September. His defence team has a case currently before a US civil court and hopes it may bar his military trial from proceeding. Observers say these new revelations warrant an external inquiry.
GENE FIDELL: Public confidence in the administration of justice in the military commissions will not be served unless there's a proper investigation.
LEIGH SALES: The Pentagon considers this matter investigated and closed. Meaning that come September, we're likely to see David Hicks and others tried by tribunals that even some of the US military's own lawyers argue is fundamentally flawed.
KERRY O'BRIEN: And David Hicks is now coming up for four years behind the razor wire.
NOT GOOD ENOUGH.
Like I have said previously - these military tribunals are nothing more than Kangaroo Courts.
|
|
|
| |
|
Dandandat
|
Aug 1 2005, 07:25 AM
Post #2
|
Time to put something here
- Posts:
- 17,948
- Group:
- Flag Officer
- Member
- #34
- Joined:
- August 30, 2003
|
The head line of the article answers it for me. Prosecutors “allege” Guantanamo military commissions rigged. So I must chose “othere”.
|
|
|
| |
|
somerled
|
Aug 1 2005, 07:50 AM
Post #3
|
Admiral MacDonald RN
- Posts:
- 19,451
- Group:
- Banned
- Member
- #62
- Joined:
- September 24, 2003
|
- Dandandat
- Aug 1 2005, 10:25 PM
The head line of the article answers it for me. Prosecutors “allege” Guantanamo military commissions rigged. So I must chose “othere”.
Allegations - yes - but from very credible people who have risked their careers by whistle blowing on this.
Where there is smoke there is fire.
And these proceedings are held in secret, wouldn't do to have independent witnesses observe them and follow the process of selection.
|
|
|
| |
|
Admiralbill_gomec
|
Aug 1 2005, 08:22 AM
Post #4
|
UberAdmiral
- Posts:
- 26,022
- Group:
- Flag Officer
- Member
- #5
- Joined:
- August 26, 2003
|
- somerled
- Aug 1 2005, 06:50 AM
- Dandandat
- Aug 1 2005, 10:25 PM
The head line of the article answers it for me. Prosecutors “allege” Guantanamo military commissions rigged. So I must chose “othere”.
Allegations - yes - but from very credible people who have risked their careers by whistle blowing on this. Where there is smoke there is fire. And these proceedings are held in secret, wouldn't do to have independent witnesses observe them and follow the process of selection.
What a steaming pantload.
Also, when there's smoke it doesn't always indicate fire. You should know that...
Tribunals are NOT held in secret, they just are not public. In other words, there are plenty of observers; military observers and government observers. There are also records kept of these tribunals.
Considering your source, I had to stop laughing at the utter stupidity of this article, but then I reconsidered the source and realized that this was SOP for them. (Standard Operating Procedure, as in their blatant anti-American bias.) They know they can print whatever false allegations they want and not be touched by American law.
I love how you are always willing to believe we are guilty first and have to prove innocence.
|
|
|
| |
|
Dr. Noah
|
Aug 1 2005, 08:32 AM
Post #5
|
Sistertrek's Asian Correspondant
- Posts:
- 17,698
- Group:
- Flag Officer
- Member
- #92
- Joined:
- January 8, 2004
|
There is far more going on there than the public will ever know at this point. It will be decades before we get all the facts.
|
|
|
| |
|
24thcenstfan
|
Aug 1 2005, 09:25 AM
Post #6
|
Something Wicked This Fae Comes
- Posts:
- 21,481
- Group:
- Flag Officer
- Member
- #4
- Joined:
- August 26, 2003
|
Other: If the assertions by the prosecutors end up being true, then yes I would find it troubling. However, it first must be proven factual.
|
|
|
| |
|
Dandandat
|
Aug 1 2005, 10:47 AM
Post #7
|
Time to put something here
- Posts:
- 17,948
- Group:
- Flag Officer
- Member
- #34
- Joined:
- August 30, 2003
|
- somerled
- Aug 1 2005, 08:50 AM
- Dandandat
- Aug 1 2005, 10:25 PM
The head line of the article answers it for me. Prosecutors “allege” Guantanamo military commissions rigged. So I must chose “othere”.
Allegations - yes - but from very credible people who have risked their careers by whistle blowing on this. Where there is smoke there is fire. And these proceedings are held in secret, wouldn't do to have independent witnesses observe them and follow the process of selection.
Some times where there is smoke there is a stink bomb I would rather wait until it is known for sure before I jump to a conclusion.
|
|
|
| |
|
Dr. Noah
|
Aug 1 2005, 10:55 AM
Post #8
|
Sistertrek's Asian Correspondant
- Posts:
- 17,698
- Group:
- Flag Officer
- Member
- #92
- Joined:
- January 8, 2004
|
Which is why information coming from Guantanmo is little and under tight wraps.
|
|
|
| |
|
Admiralbill_gomec
|
Aug 1 2005, 11:11 AM
Post #9
|
UberAdmiral
- Posts:
- 26,022
- Group:
- Flag Officer
- Member
- #5
- Joined:
- August 26, 2003
|
- Dr. Noah
- Aug 1 2005, 09:55 AM
Which is why information coming from Guantanmo is little and under tight wraps.
I have no idea if you are agreeing with Somerled, or discussing the need for NATIONAL SECURITY...
|
|
|
| |
|
Dr. Noah
|
Aug 1 2005, 11:13 AM
Post #10
|
Sistertrek's Asian Correspondant
- Posts:
- 17,698
- Group:
- Flag Officer
- Member
- #92
- Joined:
- January 8, 2004
|
If these people are indeed criminals, they should be tried in a court of law.
|
|
|
| |
|
Admiralbill_gomec
|
Aug 1 2005, 11:18 AM
Post #11
|
UberAdmiral
- Posts:
- 26,022
- Group:
- Flag Officer
- Member
- #5
- Joined:
- August 26, 2003
|
- Dr. Noah
- Aug 1 2005, 10:13 AM
If these people are indeed criminals, they should be tried in a court of law.
We have been through this, and military tribunals have already been explained to you. Don't try to restart this stale argument again. I'll just shoot you down again with the Geneval Conventions. It was only a few weeks ago... how soon they forget.
|
|
|
| |
|
Dr. Noah
|
Aug 1 2005, 11:26 AM
Post #12
|
Sistertrek's Asian Correspondant
- Posts:
- 17,698
- Group:
- Flag Officer
- Member
- #92
- Joined:
- January 8, 2004
|
In my opinion, and according the the US Constitution, criminals should be tried by a jury in a courtroom with legal representation.
|
|
|
| |
|
Admiralbill_gomec
|
Aug 1 2005, 01:25 PM
Post #13
|
UberAdmiral
- Posts:
- 26,022
- Group:
- Flag Officer
- Member
- #5
- Joined:
- August 26, 2003
|
- Dr. Noah
- Aug 1 2005, 10:26 AM
In my opinion, and according the the US Constitution, criminals should be tried by a jury in a courtroom with legal representation.
We've already discussed this, and the US Constitution only applies to US citizens.
Where's that "beating a dead horse" smiley?
|
|
|
| |
|
gvok
|
Aug 1 2005, 01:46 PM
Post #14
|
|
Unregistered
|
- Admiralbill_gomec
- Aug 1 2005, 01:25 PM
- Dr. Noah
- Aug 1 2005, 10:26 AM
In my opinion, and according the the US Constitution, criminals should be tried by a jury in a courtroom with legal representation.
We've already discussed this, and the US Constitution only applies to US citizens. Where's that "beating a dead horse" smiley?
Wrong AB. The US Constitution applies to all people in a US jurisdiction whether they are citizens or not.
Where's the "talking out of your butt" smiley?
|
|
|
| |
|
Admiralbill_gomec
|
Aug 1 2005, 04:21 PM
Post #15
|
UberAdmiral
- Posts:
- 26,022
- Group:
- Flag Officer
- Member
- #5
- Joined:
- August 26, 2003
|
- gvok
- Aug 1 2005, 12:46 PM
- Admiralbill_gomec
- Aug 1 2005, 01:25 PM
- Dr. Noah
- Aug 1 2005, 10:26 AM
In my opinion, and according the the US Constitution, criminals should be tried by a jury in a courtroom with legal representation.
We've already discussed this, and the US Constitution only applies to US citizens. Where's that "beating a dead horse" smiley?
Wrong AB. The US Constitution applies to all people in a US jurisdiction whether they are citizens or not. Where's the "talking out of your butt" smiley?
Guantanamo Bay is a military installation, not a US jurisdiction. It falls under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, not the US Constitution. Yeah, where is that "talking out of your butt smiley," gvok?
|
|
|
| |