DoD's former chief Gitmo prosecutor was pressured to bring cases before election

[BrainGlutton]

The Washington Post reports:

Sitting just feet from the courtroom table where he had once planned to make cases against military detainees, Air Force Col. Morris Davis instead took the witness stand to declare under oath that he felt undue pressure to hurry cases along so that the Bush administration could claim before political elections that the system was working.

His testimony in a small, windowless room – as a witness for Salim Ahmed Hamdan, an alleged driver for Osama bin Laden – offered a harsh insider’s critique of how senior political officials have allegedly influenced the system created to try suspected terrorists outside existing military and civilian courts.

Davis’s claims, which the Pentagon has previously denied, were aired here as the Supreme Court nears a decision on whether the Military Commissions Act of 2006 that laid the legal foundation for these hearings violates the Constitution by barring any of the approximately 275 remaining Guantanamo Bay prisoners from forcing a civilian judicial review of their detention.

Davis told Navy Capt. Keith J. Allred, who presided over the hearing, that top Pentagon officials, including Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon R. England, made it clear to him that charging some of the highest-profile detainees before elections this year could have “strategic political value.”

Davis said he wants to wait until the cases – and the military commissions system – have a more solid legal footing. He also said that Defense Department general counsel William J. Haynes II, who announced his retirement in February, once bristled at the suggestion that some defendants could be acquitted, an outcome that Davis said would give the process added legitimacy.

"He said, ‘We can’t have acquittals,’ " Davis said under questioning from Navy Lt. Cmdr. Brian Mizer, the military counsel who represents Hamdan. " ‘We’ve been holding these guys for years. How can we explain acquittals? We have to have convictions.’ "

As of so many stories like this by this date, I can only say, “I wish I were surprised.”

outrage fatigue

[Jurph]

Wait a second, I’ve read the Constitution! The Executive Branch is supposed to use the Department of Justice to apply political pressure to our Judicial system. Using the Department of Defense to apply political pressure to a kangaroo court system in order to accomplish partisan electoral gains is just… oh, yeah. Just par for the course.

[silenus]

@BrainGlutton

outrage fatigue

I hit this about 50 scandals ago. Sad, really.

[Cervaise]

Our leaders are criminals. Tell us something we don’t know.

Ooo, there’s an American Idol scandal! <drool>

[bmoak]

You’re not supposed to pay attention this! You’re supposed to be paying attention to the scary, angry black man all over the news!

[hawthorne]

The American political system has decided that it would rather not deal with these issues because it is easier to let the Bush administration run out the clock.

[BrainGlutton]

@hawthorne

The American political system has decided that it would rather not deal with these issues because it is easier to let the Bush administration run out the clock.

As opposed to what? Impeachment is politically impossible when the Pubs make up nearly half the Senate and would never vote to convict.

[hawthorne]

@BrainGlutton

As opposed to what? Impeachment is politically impossible when the Pubs make up nearly half the Senate and would never vote to convict.

Oh, no - a request for a GD answer in the Pit. Oh well.

I’m not condemning the Democrats for failing to try to impeach Bush. I’m not even condemning the likely Republican opposition in the Senate.

I’m just saying that all the incentives are in favour of waiting until Bush goes away.

This includes not just the House and the Senate, but also the party machines, the voters and the political media.

You have - I take you’ve noticed I’m a foreigner - imbalanced term limits. Both houses of Congress wield power on the basis of incumbency because of redistricting (House only) and seniority. Holding an executive to account means spending political capital. Why spend political capital going after a guy who’s going to be gone soon? Why (if you’re a Republican Senator) sacrifice political capital on bucking the party machine to hold your guy to account for his mistakes if he’s going to be gone soon? Republicans’ willingness to examine their own is largely a matter of term limits.

If you are a voter or activist, why be distracted by what will soon be the past? The scalp of a political has-been is worthless. Focus your energy on enduring political influence in the legislature and try to get your person up to be the next President.

And the media follows. Who cares now if the current administration is discredited if the political game has moved on?

Now, of course there will always be those who want to impeach. I guarantee that whoever wins next time, there’ll be calls in some circles for impeachment within a year regardless of dessert. But unless the opposition party easily has the numbers in Congress - which is highly unlikely - or has been taken over by crazed fringe elements, nothing will come of it, public goat-fucking aside. The game moves on: semi-permanent power does not stoop to deal with temporary power.*

This is not to say that there aren’t advantages of your set-up. You don’t have a risk of an indefinite-term bad president. And that is something. And of course the power of a second term president is greatly reduced - whilst Congress hasn’t held him to account, it has increasingly ignored him. But he - and other, future, presidents in his position is safe in the knowledge that he will not be held to account. And to the extent that he can still act, he can act with impunity.

As long as he doesn’t have post-office travel plans.

*[sub]Yes, I’m aware of both Nixon and Clinton. Clinton was an example of the crazed fringe elements squandering political advantage. Things have changed since Nixon - incumbency in Congress is more important and power overall has moved towards the executive.[/sub]

[Baldwin]

@Washington Post article

Davis said he wants to wait until the cases – and the military commissions system – have a more solid legal footing. He also said that Defense Department general counsel William J. Haynes II, who announced his retirement in February, once bristled at the suggestion that some defendants could be acquitted, an outcome that Davis said would give the process added legitimacy.

"He said, ‘We can’t have acquittals,’ " Davis said under questioning from Navy Lt. Cmdr. Brian Mizer, the military counsel who represents Hamdan. " ‘We’ve been holding these guys for years. How can we explain acquittals? We have to have convictions.’ "

(Bolding mine.) Jesus, I guess I’ve hit outrage fatigue too. All I’ve got is a constant low level of anger, like chronic heartburn.

So the DoD General Counsel seems to have been saying, “If it turns out we’ve imprisoned innocent people without charges for years for no reason, I think we should compound our monstrous action by falsely convicting them, in order to avoid being embarrassed and admitting we did something wrong.” I really don’t know how else to read that. Not surprising from yet another Bush-appointed douchebag. Oughta be up for war crimes. Nope, still just a dull heat, no real fire.

[Duckster]

Davis said he wants to wait until the cases – and the military commissions system – have a more solid legal footing. He also said that Defense Department general counsel William J. Haynes II, who announced his retirement in February, once bristled at the suggestion that some defendants could be acquitted, an outcome that Davis said would give the process added legitimacy.

"He said, ‘We can’t have acquittals,’ " Davis said under questioning from Navy Lt. Cmdr. Brian Mizer, the military counsel who represents Hamdan. " ‘We’ve been holding these guys for years. How can we explain acquittals? We have to have convictions.’ "

Olbermann comment about Haynes:

For the first three years we held prisoners at Guantanamo Bay, Air Force Colonel Morris Davis was the man to whom the Defense Department turned to prosecute the cases in the 1930s. Davis was the pointman for what critics believe was a kangaroo court or a version of the Soviet show trials. Davis was to prosecute men like Salim Hamdan in his cells without any rights because he was accused of having been Osama bin Laden‘s personal car driver.

There was a rather unexpected witness testifying on Hamdan‘s behalf:

Air Force Colonel Morris Davis. He is a witness in the latest Hamdan‘s case arguing that the infamous Military Commissions Act the one that Mr. Bush railroaded to a pliant Congress between the midterm elections is unconstitutional. Davis didn‘t just say the Hamdan argument was right since it permits the use of evidence obtained by coercion or torture, he‘s saying nothing of hearsay, he also quoted the former general council of the Defense Department who says told him, “We can‘t have acquittals. We‘ve been holding these guys for years. How can we explain acquittals? We have to have convictions.”

Colonel Davis put it simply, he was under pressure to hurry through cases and get those convictions so President Bush could use them politically before the 2006 midterms. And there it all he‘s in the nutshell. The military cooping the Constitution and the sacred freedoms for which the heroes of that military have fought and died, as part of some kind of crazed worship of or fear of a cheap political hack and his gang.

And as distant as it all seems, just plug yourself into that equation, you somehow wind up at Gitmo in Salim Hamdan‘s place and you say, but I‘m an American citizen, and the guard, and the torturer standing the guard says to you, “Oh, yeah, prove it, without a lawyer, without the right to trial. Prove it. And until then, you want some water? Pour it up your nose.”

Source: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24386638/

[BrainGlutton]

Now it appears none of the Gitmo detainees charged with 9/11-related crimes will be tried before W leaves office.

I guess that’s for the best . . . it’s their only hope for a fair trial.

[Cervaise]

Air Force Brig. Gen. Thomas Hartmann, the “Pentagon’s top legal adviser in the Office of Military Commissions,” has been barred from at least one Gitmo prosecution for his inappropriate meddling with and pressure on the prosecution team.

[Gukumatz]

@Cervaise

Air Force Brig. Gen. Thomas Hartmann, the “Pentagon’s top legal adviser in the Office of Military Commissions,” has been barred from at least one Gitmo prosecution for his inappropriate meddling with and pressure on the prosecution team.

Bone thrown, I suppose.

[BrainGlutton]

Not the first time Hartmann’s role has been cause for concern. From The Nation:

In an August 2007 memorandum, Stone alerted then-chief prosecutor Davis of his intent to seek an opinion from the Navy JAG about “ethical concerns regarding the professed intentions of the Legal Advisor [Hartmann].” According to the memo, Hartmann had planned to meet Hamdan’s civilian defense counsel in Cuba in September to negotiate a plea. “He told the prosecution team (LTC Britt and I) that we were not invited,” the memo reads. Clearly frustrated, Stone wrote that Hartmann’s knowledge of the Hamdan case was “totally insufficient” and that unless Hartmann was given additional information, “my client…the United States, will not be adequately represented.” But if Stone were to provide Hartmann with the necessary case documents, he would have assisted Hartmann in “usurping the role” of the prosecutor and would thus “facilitate…the disqualification of the Legal Advisor,” ultimately weakening Stone’s case and causing “turmoil for the Commissions process.”

Although Hartmann’s backdoor negotiations never took place, Stone’s ethical dilemma underscores the problem inherent in the job of the legal adviser. On the one hand, Hartmann is required to “independently and objectively provide cogent legal advice to the convening authority,” says Susan Crawford, an appointee who by law is required to remain neutral. On the other hand, the legal adviser also supervises the prosecution, a directive Hartmann has seemingly interpreted to mean that he is the de facto chief prosecutor.

“When legal advisor is meant to give independent and objective advice to the convening authority and then talks to the prosecutor about how to prosecute the case–that creates a conflict of interest,” says John Hutson, president of Franklin Pierce Law Center and the former Navy JAG. “He has overstepped his bounds and possibly created unlawful command influence.”

A second document, an unpublished op-ed written by Stone in response to a September 2007 Wall Street Journal article, confirms that the “prosecution office has been in a state of disarray since the arrival of Brigadier General Hartmann.” Stone’s op-ed corroborates Davis’s claim that Hartmann was fixated on prosecuting “sexy” cases that would politically benefit the Bush Administration. This claim is further bolstered by a statement from Britt, read in court by defense attorneys, that explains Hartmann’s rationale for pursuing particular cases. According to Britt, Hartmann said, “The reason is, this case will seize the imagination of the American people and that case won’t.”

A third document, a memo Davis submitted to the Pentagon inspector general, recounts clashes with Hartmann over day-to-day functions of the prosecutor’s office. According to Davis, at one meeting “Hartmann said: ‘I wear two hats. In one I’m responsible for providing legal advice to the convening authority and in the other I’m responsible for the prosecution.’” Davis’s memo says Hartmann wanted to increase the rate at which cases were charged, over prosecutors’ objections that many weren’t ready, sometimes because evidence hadn’t been declassified.

[Frostillicus]

The Bush scandals have become so numerous that I won’t even bother putting this latest one in its own thread. The thing is, this shit is so common as to be numbing. (Apparently, the Bush administration deliberately turned a blind eye to rampant corruption in Iraq.) I know. Shocking.

Here’s the link:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080513/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_iraq_corruption