http://www.thecouriermail.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5936,6494000^40100.html
Apparently Bush wants to start executing Guantanamo “unlawful combatants” with no jury, no appeals, and, best of all, no outside oversight- the entire sentencing and execution process will take place inside the camp.
I really hope this does not come to happen. It would be a disgrace.
Er, your link doesn’t work, and “www.thecouriermail.news.com” defaults to CNet. Care to try again?
sailor fixed the link, and i found a similar story
OK, now I’ve reviewed the article. If true, this is unutterably outrageous.
If true, this would push me towards advocating the violent overthrow of the US government.
They’re going to be subject to the exact same sort of tribunals as our military is subjected to. If it’s good enough for our troops, it’s good enough for alleged terrorists. You seem to imagine that our generals are going to lug Bob Al-Saheed into a room, say, “Well, gosh, you’ve got an awful long beard - you must be a terrorist! Someone toss me my rope…”, and that’s that. The suspects will have lawyers, they will provide evidence that they are not terrorists, we will provide evidence that they are, if their evidence is better than ours, they go home. If not, they serve a sentence, which may or may not be death, depending on the offense.
Sorry, but these are not simple criminals. These are unlawful combatants that sought the murder of thousands or millions, and the destruction of the US. Normal civilian rules don’t apply.
Jeff
Holy fucking cow. I think this is the first time I’ve sworn in GD. Here are some of the sections of the applicable Geneva Convention he would be violating:
Article 99
No prisoner of war may be tried or sentenced for an act which is not forbidden by the law of the Detaining Power or by international law, in force at the time the said act was committed.
[snip]
**No prisoner of war may be convicted without having had an opportunity to present his defence and the assistance of a qualified advocate or counsel. **
Article 100
Prisoners of war and the Protecting Powers shall be informed as soon as possible of the offences which are punishable by the death sentence under the laws of the Detaining Power.
Other offences shall not thereafter be made punishable by the death penalty without the concurrence of the Power upon which the prisoners of war depend.
The death sentence cannot be pronounced on a prisoner of war unless the attention of the court has, in accordance with Article 87, second paragraph, been particularly called to the fact that since the accused is not a national of the Detaining Power, he is not bound to it by any duty of allegiance, and that he is in its power as the result of circumstances independent of his own will.
Article 101
If the death penalty is pronounced on a prisoner of war, the sentence shall not be executed before the expiration of a period of at least six months from the date when the Protecting Power receives, at an indicated address, the detailed communication provided for in Article 107.
Article 102
A prisoner of war can be validly sentenced only if the sentence has been pronounced by the same courts according to the same procedure as in the case of members of the armed forces of the Detaining Power, and if, furthermore, the provisions of the present Chapter have been observed.
Article 105
The prisoner of war shall be entitled to assistance by one of his prisoner comrades, **to defence by a qualified advocate or counsel of his own choice, to the calling of witnesses and, if he deems necessary, to the services of a competent interpreter. He shall be advised of these rights by the Detaining Power in due time before the trial.
Failing a choice by the prisoner of war, the Protecting Power shall find him an advocate or counsel, and shall have at least one week at its disposal for the purpose. **The Detaining Power shall deliver to the said Power, on request, a list of persons qualified to present the defence. Failing a choice of an advocate or counsel by the prisoner of war or the Protecting Power, the Detaining Power shall appoint a competent advocate or counsel to conduct the defence.
The advocate or counsel conducting the defence on behalf of the prisoner of war shall have at his disposal a period of two weeks at least before the opening of the trial, as well as the necessary facilities to prepare the defence of the accused. He may, in particular, freely visit the accused and interview him in private. He may also confer with any witnesses for the defence, including prisoners of war. He shall have the benefit of these facilities until the term of appeal or petition has expired.
Particulars of the charge or charges on which the prisoner of war is to be arraigned, as well as the documents which are generally communicated to the accused by virtue of the laws in force in the armed forces of the Detaining Power, shall be communicated to the accused prisoner of war in a language which he understands, and in good time before the opening of the trial. The same communication in the same circumstances shall be made to the advocate or counsel conducting the defence on behalf of the prisoner of war.
The representatives of the Protecting Power shall be entitled to attend the trial of the case, unless, exceptionally, this is held in camera in the interest of State security. In such a case the Detaining Power shall advise the Protecting Power accordingly.
**Article 106
Every prisoner of war shall have, in the same manner as the members of the armed forces of the Detaining Power, the right of appeal or petition from any sentence pronounced upon him, with a view to the quashing or revising of the sentence or the reopening of the trial. He shall be fully informed of his right to appeal or petition and of the time limit within which he may do so. **
Article 107
Any judgment and sentence pronounced upon a prisoner of war shall be immediately reported to the Protecting Power in the form of a summary communication, which shall also indicate whether he has the right of appeal with a view to the quashing of the sentence or the reopening of the trial. This communication shall likewise be sent to the prisoners’ representative concerned. It shall also be sent to the accused prisoner of war in a language he understands, if the sentence was not pronounced in his presence. The Detaining Power shall also immediately communicate to the Protecting Power the decision of the prisoner of war to use or to waive his right of appeal.
Furthermore, if a prisoner of war is finally convicted or if a sentence pronounced on a prisoner of war in the first instance is a death sentence, the Detaining Power shall as soon as possible address to the Protecting Power a detailed communication containing:
If this takes effect, I’m going to think seriously about moving to Canada and renouncing my nationality.
Does anyone have a link to what the BBC says about this?
Ah, but ‘alleged” is the key word here. AFAIK there has been no independent determination of whether they are even unlawful combatants vs. ordinary POWs. Their detention sure as hell hasn’t been very transparent. There has been little to no information released about their identities, let alone their specific alleged offenses.
Do you really think a military tribunal is going to be effective and fair in a situation like this? I sure as hell don’t.
You’re forgetting one important distinction, Eva Luna: those detainees aren’t POWs.
I’m most certainly not forgetting at all. There has been NO independent determination of whether the detainees qualify as POWs. And I don’t see how any independent determination could even be made without outside parties having access to the detainees. We don’t even know their identities, or, as I have already stated, the offenses alleged against them, let alone whether they actually committed those acts, and much less whether those acts constitute terrorism or even violations of the laws of war.
I’m sure some international law expert will be weighing in on these issues shortly, if not here, then in the pages of mainstream publications around the world.
ElJeffe, if you truly believe that this in any way resembles justice as practiced in the US, and that there is no possibility of error or manipulation of this process by the authorities, I can only feel sorry for you.
Firstly, military tribunals throughout history have a well-deserved reputation as kangaroo courts, and those of the US military, IMO, are no exception.
Secondly, the opportunities for abuse of this process by government authorities are almost without limit.
Thirdly:
What possible evidence in favor of the defendents could be submitted, since they have been held incommunicado for more than a year already? Is the US going to fly character witnesses over from Afghanistan at defendant request? How will their US lawyers even communicate with these foreign nationals, of several origins? Who provides translators? How will lawyer-client privilege be maintained under such circumstances? Who, outside of these secret tribunals, will review procedure and evidence to ensure that the rules have been followed? The words “no appeal” should give us a hint.
Not criminals, so not subject to civilian law? OK, so try them as war criminals. There is a large body of international case law based on the proceedings of postwar, independent third-party tribunals. Does the Hague ring a bell? What justification does the US have for not turning the detainees over to such a proceeding? What are they afraid of?
Eva Luna has listed several ways that the proposed tribunals violate the Geneva Convention, to which the US is signatory. Even if you personally think the Geneva Convention is bullshit, what makes you think that this kangaroo court could not eventually be turned on US citizens?
I’m so disgusted with some elements within my country right now I can hardly see straight. Carry on, the rest of you, but I’ve said my piece.
As much as I’d like to put complete credence in a news report that headlines the announcement using the loaded term “Death Camp”, I think I’ll actually wait until, oh I don’t know, some actual facts come out before I get all disgusted and flee the country.
Don’t get your skirt up over your head. Here is a link to an abcnews.com story with less intent to inflame those that are unable to control their emotions. A few relevant excerpts:
And this from CNN.com
So despite what the OP spewed, it’s not going to be a “death camp” for the detainees. The US is only going to try those whose home countries don’t want them, and then, only the worst will go before a tribunal. If, after a trial in which the Defendants are entitled to counsel and get to present evidence on their own behalf, they are found guilty, then they’ll be given the penalties appropriate under law. If they’re found innocent, they get to go free.
Hell yes. I know more than a few defense attorneys in the JAG Corps, and all of them take their job very, very seriously. I’d say on average, they’re more committed to the concepts of fair trials and justice than civilian criminal defense attorneys. One of my buddies in the JAG Corps used to work with the lead defense attorney. I asked him what he thought of him. He responded with one word: “Badass.”
You’re right. Someone should arrange to have these guys charged with crimes . . . maybe a trial of some sort . . . .
Some basic charcateristics of a fair trial are:
That it is public. The right to know what the charges are, to have access to legal counsel, to prepare a defense, to confront and question witnesses and present witnesses for the defense. The right to appeal to a higher court…
IF the news is true it seems it seems quite a few of these are not being met and the process cannot be considered fair by any stretch of the word. It would be the kind of farce done in Communist countries and other dictatorships. I hope it will not come to pass.
Eva Luna:
Who said they wouldn’t have an opportunity to present their defense, and the assistance of a lawyer?
Again, the article said nothing that would lead one to reasonably believe the suspect wouldn’t have these rights. One could argue that since they can only choose from US lawyers, they can’t truly select counsel “of his own choice”, but this seems trivial. There’s a metric assload of lawyers for the suspects to choose from.
This is sole valid point, but I will mention that as unlawful combatants, these suspects aren’t subject to all the benefits of the Geneva Convention. They didn’t want to play by international rules, so now they get to play by our rules.
El_Kabong:
Well, I appreciate your condescending sympathy and all, but you can keep it for someone who wants it. In the meantime, can you provide some evidence to back up your claims about military tribunals, or are they simply lousy by virtue of their being associated with the military? Whoa, the military AND the U.S… double whammy!
Jeff
Just for my information and enlightenment, would somebody please give me the definition of “unlawful combatant?” Please tell me the difference between a criminal defendant, al la the post- WWII trials and the International Court now meeting at The Hague to deal with the situation in Serbia and Croatia, and ordinary criminal defendant such as the guys who blew up the federal office building in Oklahoma City, and an ordinary POW like Uncle Fritz who ended up harvesting potatoes in Canada in 1918?
Has the United States ever before characterized anybody as an “unlawful combatant,” as opposed to being a spy, or a war criminal?
Is the concept of “unlawful combatant” recognized under the customary law of war? Are they the same as spies? Are the guys in the Talaban’s militia the equivalent of spies? Are they recognized as such by the customary law of war.
Is this a whole new body of jurisprudence that we are just making up as we go along? Is there some precedent for this thing?
OK, right now they are “internees”, which the USA has decided to give the same rights as POWs. And, has given the ICRC- in their roles as Inspectors for the Geneva accords- the full right to inspect & access the internees.
Next, a “tribunal” can decide if they are POWs or not. If not, they can- under US law- be given Military style trials and then executed (or not). If they are POWs, they still can be tried by a tribunal- no jury is needed.
Eva- Thus note- “outside parties” do have access to the detainees, and not only that, the ICRC takes personal messages from each interness, and hand delivers them to his family. Thus, the ICRC, at the very least- knows their names, nationalities, etc. Go to their site of you don’t belive me- www.icrc.org There is also a link in another thread about AI.
Now, those links about the “death camps” (what’s that “law” about the first person to make a nazi reference loses?) don’t seem to work, or rather the second did once, then not again? But in answer to Eva’s long post quoting sections of the Geneva Conventions (doubtless out of context, there are over a hundred treaties making up the body of law, and no one here is qualified to quote a few sections and make an informed opinion), I did not see anything where they had no right to counsel. In Military Courts Martial, and even at the Nuremburg trials- they had counsel appointed for them. True, at a CM/ tribunal, a convicted person does not have the right to the full pantheon of appeals as in a civil criminal case, but there is an “appeal”.
Note this from the ICRC site about the Geneva Convention and Guantanamo “There has been much public debate over whether the internees in G…B… are prisoners of war or not. The ICRC thinks that the legal status of each internee needs to be clarified on an individual basis, and has repeatedly urged the US to do this. In any case, the US has the right to legally prosecute any internee at G…B… suspected of having commited war crimes or any other criminal offense punishable under US law prior to or during the hostilities”.
Fair enough. I agree that the USA should really heed this advice, and get off our butts and have the tribunal hearing to determine POW status. Although the GC does not seem to stipulate how long we have to do this (but again, note- no one here is an expert on this kind of law, including me), we have had long enough, IMHO. Either do it, do it now, or come up with a real good reason why not- and convince the ICRC with it. However, this statement also says a few other things- that the “internees” are not very obviously POWs. Some maybe are, but it would seem that reasonable doubt exists for many- enough to convince the ICRC not to cry “foul” in any case. Next, it also states clearly that we do have the right to prosecute the internees.
You can’t have a jury trial. Really. It simply is not safe or fair to the jury. You know the defense has- under law- the full acess to all Juror information, including name, address, number of children, where they work, when they work, and etc? Sorry, but I am not asking any juror to give out that kind of information to suspected international terrorists. I would refuse to fill out the questionaire, and go to jail for contempt instead. So would anyone sane that had a family. Have you been on a criminal jury for a capital case? Well, I was selected for one pool (they excused me, no surprise given my job)- they asked all those questions and more. Like who was I married to- where she worked. Who my freinds were, and other very personal questions. And, this is all perfectly legal. And, “public information”, also, to some extent. It is bad enough we have to do this with gang killers here in the USA, I am NOT going to do it with dudes who have no problem driving a truck full of explosives into my kid’s school to get back at me, or kidnap my wife to coerce me. And, in order to change this, it would seem we need a Constitutional Admendment- which we ain’t gonna get soon enough. No, sorry dudes- you get the same trial our men in Uniform get- which has been considered fair for over 200 years, and more than you’d get in your home nation, in any case.
Folks, you can fling all the insults you like. I made my comments, I stand by them, and I have nothing further to add.
Regarding military justice in the United States: My only complaint about it is the legislated kangaroo court of the Article 15 procedure for Sailors and Marines who are embarked aboard ship. The rest of it is an actual justice system.