[Vodonaeva]

Maybe military justice is not an oxymoron - wtg!


GUANTANAMO
Military judges block trials for 2 detainees
By Carol Rosenberg
McClatchy Newspapers


GUANTANAMO BAY NAVY BASE, Cuba - A pair of military judges on Monday blocked the Bush administration's latest plan to try detainees here for war crimes, dismissing charges against two suspects after finding that the Pentagon hadn't followed congressional mandates in bringing the cases.


At issue was the failure of the Pentagon to find during earlier proceedings that Omar Khadr, 20, whom U.S. officials had charged with murder in the death of a U.S. Special Forces medic, and Salim Hamdan, 36, a driver for Osama bin Laden, were "unlawful enemy combatants." Instead, military panels had declared that the men were simply "enemy combatants."


But in separate decisions, Army Col. Peter Brownback and Navy Capt. Keith Allred said that that designation was insufficient under the Military Commissions Act passed last year.


Brownback said the act specifically limits trials to detainees who'd be tagged as "unlawful enemy combatants" and bars trials of "lawful enemy combatants." Without a more specific designation, a military commission has no authority to act, he found.


"A person has a right to be tried only by a court that has jurisdiction over him," Brownback said.


Allred used slightly different logic to reach the same conclusion. He said Hamdan "is either entitled to the designation as a prisoner-of-war or he is an alien unlawful enemy combatant. Or he is entitled to another status."


The Pentagon's current Combatant Status Review Tribunals doesn't distinguish among the three, he said.


The decisions immediately set off calls for the Bush administration to forgo its efforts to set up a separate judicial system to try Guantanamo detainees for alleged war crimes.


"This decision demonstrates the egregious flaws of the Military Commissions Act and makes the point once again that Congress must act immediately to change this law," said Sen. Christopher Dodd, D-Conn. "The current system of prosecuting enemy combatants is not only inefficient and ineffective, it is also hurting America's moral standing in the world and corroding the foundation of freedom upon which our nation was built."


Chief defense counsel Marine Corps. Col. Dwight Sullivan noted that each captive currently held at Guantanamo is classified as an "enemy combatant," not an "unlawful enemy combatant."


Sullivan, who oversees the defense of all military commission cases, declared the war court "a complete failure" and urged the Pentagon to end its efforts to prosecute Guantanamo detainees under the Military Commissions Act.


"The system right now should just stop," said Sullivan. "The commission is an experiment that failed and we don't need any more evidence that it is a failure."


The chief prosecutor, Air Force Col. Morris Davis, a frequent visitor to the Guantanamo media center, chose not to comment on Monday night.


In Washington, Navy Cmdr. Jeffrey Gordon, a Pentagon spokesman, said the Defense Department planned to appeal. But Brownback, a retired military judge, scoffed at that idea when prosecutors raised it on Monday, saying there was no court to which the government could appeal.


Congress authorized the Defense Department to establish a Court of Military Commission Review to handle appeals, but the court has yet to be set up. Defense Department officials said Monday they didn't know when appointments to the court would be made.


Muneer Ahmed, an American University law professor who represented Khadr until last week, said quick appointments to the review court would only further damage the commissions' credibility.


"I think that's going to do more damage than help," he said.


Monday's rulings - Brownback's decision in the Khadr case came first, followed later by Allred's decision in the Hamdan case - were the latest in a long line of legal rulings that have blocked Bush administration efforts to try Guantanamo detainees for alleged war crimes.


Since President Bush declared in 2002 that the Geneva Conventions covering prisoners of war wouldn't apply to Guantanamo detainees, debate has raged over the administration's efforts to create a new kind of military war court - the first U.S. war crimes tribunals since World War II.


Military defense attorneys objected to the proposals, and international law and human rights groups criticized the effort as extrajudicial, extra-territorial justice. Twice, the Supreme Court handed the detainees specific victories. In its latest ruling last year, the court held that plans to try the detainees were unconstitutional because Congress hadn't authorized the trials. The Military Commissions Act was intended to overcome that objection.


But Brownback, who served as chief presiding officer at the first attempt to stage commissions, found that the rules Congress established and those that the Pentagon had been following before the legislation was passed were incompatible.


Brownback declared the dismissal "without prejudice," meaning the Defense Department could seek in the future to recharge the Toronto-born Khadr.


Allred said the problem with the Hamdan case could be remedied by holding a new hearing to determine his status.


Even so, there was a special irony to Allred's ruling. Hamdan, accused of being bin Laden's driver, was the plaintiff who successfully challenged an earlier Pentagon trial scheme before the Supreme Court. It was that case that led to the passage of the Military Commissions Act.


Hamdan, 36, grinned as he listened through Arabic translation as his lawyer accused the Bush administration of "essentially winging it on the jurisdictional basis for this court's proceedings."


Khadr's case had long been controversial because he was only 15 when he was captured in Afghanistan. U.S. prosecutors accused him of murdering a U.S. Special Forces medic during a firefight in July 2002, but some legal experts argued that as a juvenile he should have been treated differently.


But the dispute over technical language was largely unexpected.


The rulings were also likely to force new status hearings for 14 so-called "high-value detainees" transferred here from CIA custody last year, among them suspected Sept. 11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.


At each of those hearings, the presiding officer said the purpose was to determine if a detainee was an "enemy combatant." There was no mention about the status of an "unlawful enemy combatant."


"If the U.S. government were at all wise, this would be a fatal blow to the military commissions," said Jennifer Daskal, an attorney and observer from Human Rights Watch. "In five years, the military commissions have convicted one person by plea agreement."


In that deal, in late March, Australian captive David Hicks, 31, agreed to plead guilty to a single charge of providing material support for terrorism in exchange for a nine-month sentence. He returned last month to Australia to serve his sentence.


Said Amnesty International observer Jumana Musa: "At this point, detainees have been more successful committing suicide in Guantanamo than the government has been successful in getting detainees to trial."


Rosenberg reports for The Miami Herald. Warren P. Strobel in Washington contributed to this report.

[FEti0TUI]

This decision demonstrates the egregious flaws of the Military Commissions Act and makes the point once again that Congress must act immediately to change this law," said Sen. Christopher Dodd, D-Conn. "The current system of prosecuting enemy combatants is not only inefficient and ineffective, it is also hurting America's moral standing in the world and corroding the foundation of freedom upon which our nation was built. Well said, Sen. Christopher Dodd.

Last night on our ABC TV I watched the first episode of a two-part documentary about torture…

Four Corners - 04/06/2007: Torture

The experts and officials interviewed said that the detainees at Guantanamo had in fact yielded little information of any value to US security.

David Hicks, the only detainee convicted in the past five years, had no proven critical part in any activity that directly threatened the United States. Australians were aghast by his prolonged detention without charge and his mistreatment at Guantanamo. In fact, the huge public outcry here, which even turned members of the ruling conservative party against the Prime Minister, with the affair becoming a top election issue, forced President Bush to get David Hicks to trial, sham trial that it was. How can you torture and torment a man for five years, and then call his day in court a fair trial?

Tethys

[Freeptube]

The administration's and/or legislature's response will be interesting.

[amagmasia]

Well said, Sen. Christopher Dodd.

Last night on our ABC TV I watched the first episode of a two-part documentary about torture…

Four Corners - 04/06/2007: Torture

The experts and officials interviewed said that the detainees at Guantanamo had in fact yielded little information of any value to US security.

David Hicks, the only detainee convicted in the past five years, had no proven critical part in any activity that directly threatened the United States. Australians were aghast by his prolonged detention without charge and his mistreatment at Guantanamo. In fact, the huge public outcry here, which even turned members of the ruling conservative party against the Prime Minister, with the affair becoming a top election issue, forced President Bush to get David Hicks to trial, sham trial that it was. How can you torture and torment a man for five years, and then call his day in court a fair trial?

Tethys

Hi Tethys!

You can't torture and torment someone for five years and then say, when his day in court comes, that he's had a "fair" trial. Anyone with a lick of common sense knows that ain't true.

I noticed, among the conservatives here, that only Matt Larson, in my thread, "A Stunning Reversal" has bothered to respond to this topic- and it was an extremely lame and anemic response at that. The deafening silence from the "Right" rears it's ugly head once again. Can't say I blame them though- after all we've seen and all that's transpired since March '03 and considering all that's been leveled and said against the liberals and Democrats in this country- and the rest of the world- I think I'd want to be pulling the window shades down tight and keeping my mouth shut too. I'd be utterly humiliated if I'd done and said the things they've said against those that obviously knew a lot more than they (the Righties) did. I am soooo glad I do not have to count myself among their number.

Gem

[standaman]

I noticed, among the conservatives here, that only Matt Larson, in my thread, "A Stunning Reversal" has bothered to respond to this topic- and it was an extremely lame and anemic response at that.

I am opposed to the detentions at Guantanamo. I have always called for due process for these detainees. Either charge and try then, or let them go.

So when I said:

This seems a just ruling not to try him, IMHO.

Matt it was because I support the decision not to try him on the charges.

Not sure how calling the court's decision just qualifies as lame or anemic.

By the way, the link you posted in that thread no longer works.

Matt

[incizarry]

Hi Tethys!

You can't torture and torment someone for five years and then say, when his day in court comes, that he's had a "fair" trial. Anyone with a lick of common sense knows that ain't true.

I noticed, among the conservatives here, that only Matt Larson, in my thread, "A Stunning Reversal" has bothered to respond to this topic- and it was an extremely lame and anemic response at that. The deafening silence from the "Right" rears it's ugly head once again. Can't say I blame them though- after all we've seen and all that's transpired since March '03 and considering all that's been leveled and said against the liberals and Democrats in this country- and the rest of the world- I think I'd want to be pulling the window shades down tight and keeping my mouth shut too. I'd be utterly humiliated if I'd done and said the things they've said against those that obviously knew a lot more than they (the Righties) did. I am soooo glad I do not have to count myself among their number.

Gem

Hi back, Gem…

yes, it’s a decision that renews my hope in the US system, in the sense that it shows that justice can still prevail when enough people take a stand, and when those with the power to make a difference do the ethical thing.

I think a lot of rightists have misconstrued the arguments of those who criticise Gitmo. It always was a question of law and ethics, but our position was twisted to accusations of sympathy for terrorists. Now, I bet that they will claim that this decision is evidence that democracy rules in the United States, and somehow turn it into a vindication of their position. You’ll see…they’ll claim that liberals were so wrong to suggest that the United States is edging towards fascism, etc.

Still, there was a time in my life when I was heedless to the wrongs of things I supported, so I do have a lot of empathy for those who supported Gitmo in the genuine belief that it was the right thing to do.

Tethys

[grosqueneen]

I am opposed to the detentions at Guantanamo. I have always called for due process for these detainees. Either charge and try then, or let them go.

Yes, Matt. And here too, as in the US, this issue united people across the political divide.

Tethys

[Accor$314]

Good night everyone...it's sleeptime down under.

Tethys

[Fosavoa]

Yes, Matt. And here too, as in the US, this issue united people across the political divide.

Tethys

Apparently to some, this is an "extremely lame and anemic" position....

Matt

[carlsberg21]

Apparently to some, this is an "extremely lame and anemic" position....

Matt

Perhaps you close this thread matt

[regfortruegoo]

Apparently to some, this is an "extremely lame and anemic" position....

Matt

This response of yours is a classic example of how you- and a lot of other "Righties"- twist the words of others, Matt. I never said the position was lame and anemic- I said your response was lame and anemic.

Tell me, what is there to honor and respect in someone who will twist the words of others to advance their own opinions and agendas? I might be a leftist liberal Democrat with a bit of an attitude but I also believe in God. And the God I know doesn't go twisting the words of others- and he's also told me which, and what kind of, spirits do.

Gem

[Freedjome]

Perhaps you close this thread matt

Why? Does it scare you?

Gem

[ñàéäèíã]

The latest on Mr. Khadr: He has been convicted of murder in the death of Sgt. 1st Class Christopher Speer. Due to a plea agreement, he'll be released to Canadian custody in one year with the possibility of parole in 30 months. CBC News - World - Khadr will move to maximum security

[Niobaralegra]

The latest on Mr. Khadr: He has been convicted of murder in the death of Sgt. 1st Class Christopher Speer. Due to a plea agreement, he'll be released to Canadian custody in one year with the possibility of parole in 30 months. CBC News - World - Khadr will move to maximum security

Really...in the vast majority of cases, summary execution of enemy combatants is much more effective...after the few interrogations needed here and there, less public detainment and more uncaptures...shoot at us, kill or injure us...bye.
Give our regards to Mohammed...

Every US military member is much more valuable to me than any enemy combatant...12 or 50.
Khadr has killed many times in his life...he has forfeited his license to live.