The government is changing some of the rules regarding to War Crimes trials:
Pentagon officials announced procedural changes Wednesday to the military commissions created by the Bush administration to try terrorism suspects on war crimes charges at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba.
The officials said the changes would not only make the commissions more efficient but also respond to international criticism that the trials were unfair. Several critics, however, said the changes did not address some fundamental problems with the proceedings, which, given a favorable ruling in a case now before the Supreme Court, are likely to resume this fall.
Brig. Gen. Thomas L. Hemingway, the Air Force officer who serves as legal adviser to the military command that runs the commissions, said the most important revision involved changing the roles of their members, doing away with a system in which all of them acted as both judge and jury.
Contrary to earlier rules, the presiding officer, a military lawyer, will now decide questions of law. The other members, who will no longer play a role in most such decisions, will decide questions of fact including guilt or innocence; the presiding officer will no longer have a vote in these matters.
Among other changes is one altering the wording of a rule that during the proceedings, defendants “may be present to the extent consistent with the need to protect classified information.” The new wording says defendants “shall be present to the extent consistent … .”
But the revisions do not address some of the features that have attracted the most criticism. Evidence that might have been obtained by coercion or even torture can still be admitted at the discretion of the presiding officer, who may also allow other evidence that would normally be excluded from civilian courts, including hearsay, if he believes it tends to prove a particular position.
I will look around for additional commentary and post what I find later.
norbizness
Well, these aren’t war crimes trials, as your first sentence indicates, as the whole purpose of Guantanamo is to operate a system outside of the Geneva Conventions. However, the changes to these military commissions appear to be cosmetic, which isn’t good considering that defendants (if they can even be called that) started off with one-sixth the due process protections of a court in Apartheid South Africa.
Don Surber
On-sixth? Once again some blogger trying to quantify intangibles
norbizness
OK, Don, “of eight important procedural protections in a criminal setting, a court in Apartheid South Africa had 6. The military commissions had one (the right to remain silent).”
jobiuspublius
They still have a lot of work to do. It’s amazing how far we’ve come, in the wrong direction.
Oh,Boy.Stupidity!
It’s amazing how the very same people are so worried about Gitmo’s prisoners not receiving a fair trial are more than happy to see Karl Rove marched off to jail without so much a stitch of evidence.
Veeshir
In America, if you’re innocent you want to be in front of a military tribunal.
If you’re guilty you want to be in front of a civilian court.
First, that’s 1/8 not 1/6.
Second, it’s nice to pick your own postulates to prove your point.
Civil judge was one of the criteria. Ummm, duh. In a military court you get military judges. I could also say a civilian court is less open and free because you can’t get a military tribunal.
Choose own lawyer, again, that’s like saying that at Safeway I can choose any kind of root beer I want but at A&W I only get one choice. That’s the frigging point. But you can choose your own lawyer, he/she has to be able to practice before a military tribunal.
Remain silent. That’s the 1 in the 1/8th (not 1/6th)
Open trial, again, that’s the point of a military tribunal. We don’t want to disclose our intelligence gathering methods.
Jury trial, Bzzzzzzzzt, wrong answer. Johnny, tell him about his parting gifts. This is a tribunal. In other words, it’s multiple people deciding so that’s a mere semantic difference. Unless by “jury” you always mean 12 people. In that case, England isn’t free either.
Lawyer/client confidentiality, this appears to mean that the defendant can’t tell his lawyer that he’s guilty. Awwwww. I’m all heartbroken about that.
Know all evidence against you, again, that’s the point. To keep intelligence gathering secret. Otherwise, we would only get to use a source once and that’s that. He/she/it is dead. Have a nice day.
Appeal to independent judge. I call BS on that one. Mostly because it is assuming that a military judge isn’t independent.
The only point I would say is even close to valid is attorney/client privilege. But they have committed an act of war so they get military tribunals. We could always send them back to their countries. Saudi Arabia has a nice appeal process. It lasts about 10 minutes and then they chop off whichever part of your body you’re losing. Ditto close to half the world.
Shygetz
Where did you get that crap?
No, that’s you not being able to do math or read English, I’m not sure which.
Military tribunal=1/8
Apartheid South Africa=6/8
Military tribunal/Apartheid South Africa=1/6
I’ll wait while you get your calculator.
Um, duh, that is his point. Civilian judges have one set of priorities (to implement justice); military judges have another (to implement military policy, which does NOT always equal justice).
The president of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers has recommended that civillian lawyers not agree to represent clients in these tribunals, because they cannot present an effective and zealous defense under the rules of the tribunal. They are not allowed to see the documentation used against their client, even if they have proper security clearance. The government is not paying any civilian lawyers and they are not allowing non-US-born civiallin defense lawyers, so acquiring civilian representation is difficult at best. And saying that the best defense you can get is allowing a member of the military (which is accusing you of the crime) to defend you is like saying that allowing the car salesman to negotiate the price for the car you’re buying from him will give you the best price. Terrible logic.
Oh, I see. Veeshir, I accuse you of a crime. I know you did it. No, I can’t tell you how I know, because I have to protect my source, but believe me, you did it. Isn’t the fact that I accuse you enough to convince anyone of your guilt? Now, I will incarcerate you incommunicado until I change my mind. No, no, don’t complain, you’re guilty because I said so. Case closed, next please.
No, dummy, a jury is a group of civilians chosen by both counsel for impartiality. A military tribunal uses a group of military personnel chosen by the military for their own reasons. Big difference.
Bullshit. You cannot tell your lawyer anything that may be used to put you in a bad light, regardless of whether or not you are guilty.
No, it means that you cannot appeal the verdict to someone outside of the military branch that accused you. In fact, the original rules said that, even if the tribunal found you guilty, the President could still detain you if he wanted to (this was in 2002, it may have changed since then). In civil justice, the executive accuses you and the judicial determines your guilt. In military tribunals, there is no appeal outside of the Executive branch.
And here we get to the bottom of your arguments. You presume that everyone in Gitmo is guilty. Therefore, the tribunals are only for show, and therefore their rights are not important. However, you have no proof that they are guilty other than the fact that they are accused. Not exactly stellar proof of guilt by American standards.
Ah, the “We’re better than Saudi Arabia” argument. I was afraid I’d never hear that one again. So now, your metric for American morality is to be at least a little better than Saudi Arabia. Glad you cleared that up.
Veeshir
You got me on the 1/6 part.
The people in Gitmo were taken on a field of war without wearing a uniform.
You said this
Oh, I see. Veeshir, I accuse you of a crime.
No, you catch me committing a war crime.
Big difference.
We have been releasing those we think don’t deserve to be there.
No, I’m not saying “We’re better than SA”, I’m saying we’re handling their criminals and we don’t have to. We could just turn them over to their countries. Or are you advocating giving them green cards? Or returning them to Iraq or Afghanistan so they can continue their profession? (which is trying to kill Americans)
The trials aren’t for show, they’re because we’re Americans.
From your comments it appears that you don’t trust our military. I do. They’re the most professional, trustworthy and honest military ever. Ever.
“No better friend, no worse enemy” isn’t a load of crap. It’s the truth.
I stand by my comments.
As for your question about where I got this comment:
In America, if you’re innocent you want to be in front of a military tribunal.
If you’re guilty you want to be in front of a civilian court.
from numerous military personel. Both friends and writers I’ve read. Go find one and ask him or her that question. Seriously.
John, you were in the military, have you ever heard that statement? Would you agree with it?