Much of the morning was taken up with [defense attorney] Commander Swift's efforts to portray [presiding panelist] Colonel Brownback as incapable of serving impartially because of extensive contacts with senior Pentagon officials who helped set up the military tribunals. Colonel Brownback, who came out of retirement to serve on a tribunal, seemed annoyed at Commander Swift's request that he step aside and said he would forward it to the Pentagon. By the end of the day Commander Swift had challenged the suitability of four other panel members.
Commander Swift said that Colonel Brownback should be disqualified because he said at a July 15 meeting with some lawyers that he did not believe Guantánamo detainees had any rights to a speedy trial. Colonel Brownback sharply denied making the remark.
But hours later at the conclusion of the day's proceedings, Commander Swift stunned Colonel Brownback when he said he had just learned that an audiotape of the meeting existed and he would like to include it in his request that Colonel Brownback be disqualified...
...Military officials have sought to emphasize the rights granted to tribunal defendants, like the presumption of innocence, and seem baffled by complaints and news reports that emphasize the features of the proceedings that fall short of the standards of American justice.
The trials are being observed by officials from various organizations, including the American Civil Liberties Union, the American Bar Association, Human Rights Watch, Human Rights First and Amnesty International. Anthony Romero, the executive director of the civil rights union, told reporters the shortcomings in the system far canceled out the rights provided.
NY Times article
Commander Swift said that Colonel Brownback should be disqualified because he said at a July 15 meeting with some lawyers that he did not believe Guantánamo detainees had any rights to a speedy trial. Colonel Brownback sharply denied making the remark.
But hours later at the conclusion of the day's proceedings, Commander Swift stunned Colonel Brownback when he said he had just learned that an audiotape of the meeting existed and he would like to include it in his request that Colonel Brownback be disqualified...
...Military officials have sought to emphasize the rights granted to tribunal defendants, like the presumption of innocence, and seem baffled by complaints and news reports that emphasize the features of the proceedings that fall short of the standards of American justice.
The trials are being observed by officials from various organizations, including the American Civil Liberties Union, the American Bar Association, Human Rights Watch, Human Rights First and Amnesty International. Anthony Romero, the executive director of the civil rights union, told reporters the shortcomings in the system far canceled out the rights provided.
Tell me what you think of the Tribunal panel's credentials:
Marine Col. Jack K. Sparks Jr., said he was a commanding officer of a Marine reserve unit and that one of his men was a firefighter killed in the 2001 attack on the World Trade Center in New York. He said he went to the funeral.
Another member, Marine Col. R. Thomas Bright, said he was in charge of the logistics of moving detainees to Guantanamo and was involved in putting their names in order, but he said he had no knowledge of Hamdan.
An alternate, Army Lt. Col. Curt S. Cooper, said at some point he had referred to Guantanamo prisoners as "terrorists" but had no presumption of guilt about Hamdan or others.
"It was a very general statement at a very general time," he said, adding that he had undergone self-study about Islam and al-Qaida to "understand both sides."
Another member, Air Force Col. Christopher C. Bogdan, was involved in arming drone planes during the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Air Force Lt. Col. Timothy K. Toomey said he was an intelligence officer in Afghanistan and acknowledged he might have seen information on Hamdan.
The only member of the commission with formal legal training is the presiding officer, Army Col. Peter E. Brownback, a former military judge who came out of retirement when he volunteered. Asked by Swift whether he thought the proceedings were legal, Brownback chose not to answer.
Findlaw article
Another member, Marine Col. R. Thomas Bright, said he was in charge of the logistics of moving detainees to Guantanamo and was involved in putting their names in order, but he said he had no knowledge of Hamdan.
An alternate, Army Lt. Col. Curt S. Cooper, said at some point he had referred to Guantanamo prisoners as "terrorists" but had no presumption of guilt about Hamdan or others.
"It was a very general statement at a very general time," he said, adding that he had undergone self-study about Islam and al-Qaida to "understand both sides."
Another member, Air Force Col. Christopher C. Bogdan, was involved in arming drone planes during the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Air Force Lt. Col. Timothy K. Toomey said he was an intelligence officer in Afghanistan and acknowledged he might have seen information on Hamdan.
The only member of the commission with formal legal training is the presiding officer, Army Col. Peter E. Brownback, a former military judge who came out of retirement when he volunteered. Asked by Swift whether he thought the proceedings were legal, Brownback chose not to answer.
(Se Brownback's remarks above.)
Oooops, maybe those aren't the first trials.
Tell me what you think of the proceedings:
While the military tribunals for four detainees charged with war crimes are getting far more attention, the U.S. is quietly disposing of cases at a much faster rate through its Combatant Status Review Tribunal. Since it began on July 30, the tribunals have held hearings for 31 detainees, according to The New York Times.
Behind the Homefront article
GUANTÁNAMO BAY, Cuba, Aug. 22 - Starting Tuesday, the United States military will begin war crimes trials at a secure courtroom here under the eyes of a large international contingent of news organizations and human rights observers. But for the last month, the military has been conducting other tribunals under far more obscure circumstances here to review whether the 585 detainees on this Navy base have been properly deemed unlawful enemy combatants.
Officials said on Monday that these special tribunals had so far completed the process for 14 inmates and that all had been determined to be enemy combatants despite objections and denials from most of them. The proceedings, which have been open to a small number of reporters, can take nearly two hours for each prisoner, said the officials, who spoke on the condition that they not be identified.
...Neil R. Sonnett, a Miami lawyer who heads a special American Bar Association panel to monitor the military proceedings at Guantánamo, said on Monday that the combatant review tribunals did not come close to meeting the court's standard.
... The hearing is conducted by three officers and the detainee is given a "personal representative" who is neither a lawyer nor an advocate. The representative, a military officer, is supposed to pass along to the panel any evidence the detainee wishes to offer as well as any incriminating evidence the detainee has told him.
The detainee may also be denied information about how, where and from whom the information about the accusations supporting the enemy combatant charge originated if officials deem it classified.
American justice.
More on Guantanamo Bay's "detainees" can be found on my War page here.
....but hey, do what you want....you will anyway.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Comments are moderated. There may be some delay before your comment is published. It all depends on how much time M has in the day. But please comment!