A plan under consideration by the Obama administration would permit Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, detainees facing the death penalty to plead guilty without a full trial, it has been reported.
How nice!
This option would principally be aimed at a group of detainees accused of planning the Sept. 11, 2001 terror attacks, five people who have already indicated they prefer this resolution of the case, The New York Times said in a story posted late Friday on its Web site.
Prefer it because….? Prefer it to military commissions? Prefer it to just hanging around pretending they might someday get a trial? I want to know the what and the why of this alleged preference.
One advantage of permitting guilty pleas by defendants in the Sept. 11 case would be that the government would not have to expose harsh interrogation techniques during full trials that would otherwise have to be carried out, the Times said.
No kidding. It has great advantage to the government. But what’s the advantage to the detainee?
It said the proposal to permit guilty pleas — which are not allowed in the legal framework the U.S. military uses in trials for its own personnel — would in effect permit the Sept. 11 defendants to achieve a self-proclaimed desire for martyrdom.
Ah. Well, if that’s what they want…they can always try to attack a guard.
The theory behind the ban on such pleas in trials for U.S. military personnel is that prosecutors would have to prove their case in court against any individual facing such a serious charge.
What a stupid idea. Jeesh. This is America, in case you forgot. But let me get back to the whole thing about not permitting guilty pleas. A defendant in a U.S. court can plead guilty and waive a right to trial. This article tells us that the reason we don’t permit detainees to plead guilty is that they could then be considered martyrs. There we go, mixing religion and civil rights again. But…why can’t our own military personnel plead guilty in military trials?
U.S. military law, which is the model for the military-commission rules, bars members of the armed services who are facing capital charges from pleading guilty. Partly to assure fairness when execution is possible, court-martial prosecutors are required to prove guilt in a trial even against service members who want to plead guilty.
Partly to assure fairness makes little sense. If the defendant pleads guilty, where’s the unfairness? But, never mind…what’s the other part?
Update: Glenn Greewald Chimes in.
Yes. So it makes me wonder whether their “preferences” for pleading guilty came about in a similar way as their confessions.The primary reason to avoid trials upon a guilty plea is to prevent public disclosure of the details of the torture we inflicted on these detainees.
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!