Guilty pleas in capital case for GITMO detainees?

Great Debates
1

I’d really prefer this not go to the pit. Then again, I’m prolly gonna cuss a lot, and other folks might too.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31132901

*The Obama administration is considering a change in the law for the military commissions at the prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, that would clear the way for detainees facing the death penalty to plead guilty without a full trial.

The provision could permit military prosecutors to avoid airing the details of brutal interrogation techniques. It could also allow the five detainees who have been charged with the Sept. 11 attacks to achieve their stated goal of pleading guilty to gain what they have called martyrdom. *

This is bullshit. Bad law, bad policy, bad strategy. It’s fucking Constitutional Blasphemy.

These guys have been held for years, without being formally charged for much of that time, without meaningful access to counsel, without any real opportunity to prepare much less present an effective defense, and probably tortured into confessing to whatever the prosecution felt was sexy.

Now, they want to let them plead guilty to death-eligible charges because the goddamn government doesn’t have the fucking balls to give them a fair trial in open court and let the chips fall where they may. Yeah, I know some states also allow guilty pleas to capital cases. There’s still supposed to be a penalty phase–ie, another legal proceeding to determine whether aggravating factors outweigh mitigating factors, and therefore a death sentence is appropriate. At any legitimate penalty phase hearing, the defense ought to be able to present the same goddamn evidence the government is so fucking scared to have see the light of day. Like what exactly was done during interrogations, and how might that have affected the decision to enter a guilty plea, for starters. Throw in how exactly other evidence was obtained. How much was paid to people as bounties to rat out their enemies…er…provide valuable intelligence about scary terrorists. And pretty much any other mitigating evidence that may exist.

This isn’t a trial, it’s an abomination. If the government wants these guys dead that fucking bad, they shoulda done it on the battlefield, or they may as well blow off any semblance of a kangaroo court, put the guys against the nearest wall, and shoot them in the head. At least that way they don’t have to anally rape Lady Justice to do it.

It’s bad policy, because we’re supposed to be fucking better than that. We’re a nation of laws. Defendants have rights. If we throw that away in the tough cases, we’re no better than what we claim the defendants are.

It’s bad strategy because doing it this way makes our much vaunted freedom a farce, and allows the defendants martyrdom. Hell, if this goes through, every swinging dick in GITMO may as well plead guilty and line up for the fucking ovens. Yeah, I just Godwinized my own goddamn thread. Fuck it. These guys aren’t gonna get anything like a fair trial, they have no chance at winning freedom. At least stand up and take it like a man. Maybe they’ll get the 72 Virgins or whatever they believe in.

I really pity the poor lawyers trying to defend this farce. I honestly don’t know if I could do it without just going apeshit in Court and racking up more citations for contempt than previously thought possible. They’d be well earned, because I have nothing but contempt for this bullshit.

Note that the linked article says Obama has not, at this time. personally approved the death penalty provisions. This isn’t about Obama. It isn’t about Bush. It’s about what I thought America was supposed to be. And what it apparently isn’t.

I wanna puke.

2

I believe that these “terrorists” should be held by martial law and not given the freedoms that we as Americans are promised by the constitution. I understand that there is an argument for “common rights” but this is a case of military action. I would be obviously easier if these men were wearing a terrorist uniform when they were cought but that obviously isn’t a possibility. If these people ask for the death penalty I don’t feel we are obligated to change their minds or force them to search for the rights we have established. I haven’t fully formed my opinion on the death penalty but I do believe that court trials would be an act of futility.

“If the government wants these guys dead that fucking bad, they shoulda done it on the battlefield”

I don’t think that you would accept a country that denies the surrender of those not wishing to fight.

I wonder where you want these guys to be released if a trial is held and the defendent is absolved or serves their time. From what I hear it is dificult to find a country willing to take the few we have attemped to release.

3

A horrible idea. The whole problem is that we tortured them and thus forced them to say things that might not be true. That means they need more protection from the consequences of their words, not less.

4

Preach it, Oak. Pleading guilty foregoes trial and disclosure ? What the fuck ?! How can this not open the door to “OK, Abdul, you’re gonna plead guilty, or else…” ?

They either get the same law as everyone else, or they don’t get a fair trial. It’s as simple as that. You don’t make special laws for special defendants, and you don’t judge people using ex post facto laws, that’s not justice.
You want to make it a martial court rather than a civilian one ? Fine. There’s an existing set of martial laws and provisions. Those laws don’t guarantee a death verdict ? Tough cookies. That’s kind of the point of a fucking trial.

5

Yes, because I doubt we have any good reason to hold them. And I’d probably want to die too after being tortured enough.

That would be better than what we are. Someone who mows down surrendered prisoners with machine guns is better than we are.

6

Wait. “terrorist” is now a nationality? So one can not be “terrorist” and “American” by definition? And how exactly does one “become” a “terrorist”? Oh? Just on the say-so of the American government? I see. So the American government can give justice to some by declaring them American citizens and shit to others by declaring them “terrorists”. I see. And you think this is fair? And you think the rest of the world will not have a problem with this?

If I were some Iraqi or Afghani or Pakistani this would be a clear message that Americans think it is OK to treat me like I am disposable and I am entitled to kill Americans before they kill me.

Discriminatory rules imposed by the powerful on the powerless always result in revolt and most often in violence. People get tired of sitting in the back of the bus and of being tortured and killed just because some white guys said it was divine law.

7

From same article…“Federal civilian courts and courts in most states with capital-punishment laws permit such [guilty] pleas.”

Seems consistent with US civilian laws. Inconsistent with US military law.

8

But not as a rule from people who have been tortured. Unless they’ve started torturing people too.

9

I’m sure you could still plead guilty whether you’ve been tortured or not. If you don’t want to defend yourself, you don’t have too.

I’m sure you could get any confession/evidence tossed out if it resulted from torture, if you wanted too.

I’m sure a lawyer representing these detainees can make this decision, if asked to do so.

10

And who is going to believe that we didn’t torture them into it ? Or just that they chose death because it’s better than our treatment of them.

11

Or the third option, that they want to die. I don’t know; which seems most plausible? Do you think there is only one explanation?

As for your question, I don’t believe we are going to torture them in the future in the hopes that they plead guilty.

12

Given that they are in the hands of known torturers ?

You are pro-torture; of course you’d say that.

13

We are talking about a very select few of the detainees. And we are talking about their disposition before they were apprehended, not after. Did they 19 hijackers want to die? Do suicide bombers want to die? Is it possible that some terrorist prefer to die to further their cause?

Where do you get that I am pro-torture?

14

No we’re not. We’re talking about using these very select few detainees to draft a law that’ll be used on all of them.

15

If they want to plead guilty, but we won’t let them, why can’t they just “throw” their trial? Just keep admitting, in court, that they helped plot the attacks of 9/11/01, that they don’t regret what they did, and that they will devote their lives to doing even worse acts if they can. DEATH TO AMERICA!!

16

How would the option to plead guilty to a crime that involves a death sentence be used on all the detainees? Not all of the detainees would be charged with crimes that have the death sentence as a punishment.

17

Not all of them. But the OP article itself states : “It is not known how many detainees might eventually face death-penalty charges”, which to me implies a non-zero tally.

Besides, as John Mace said, what’s the harm in actually giving a trial to those who really, honestly want to die ? It seems fairly straightforward to me : implementing that proposed law opens the door to tons of abuse, makes every guilty plea highly suspect and doesn’t change what the willing martyrs get. Holding fair trials is just, restricts abuse and doesn’t change what the willing martyrs get. So, why implement that law, exactly ?

18

I think you’re find that this policy is about protecting someone from the consequences, but it’s not the detainees.

19

Well, we know why. It sidesteps airing the dirty laundry that went on while they were detained. So, if you can let them get what they want (death by US hands) in a way consistent with the same procedures US citizens are allowed to do (plead guilty in death penalty cases), why not.

Even if they are all charged with a crime that has death as a punishment (most won’t), but if they did, they could still plead not guilty.

John Mace describes a trial in which the defendant would be gagged within a few minutes. Is that going to be suspect trial, too? Sentencing someone to death who was literally gagged during the trial. He is right though, the trial would only be used as a soapbox for someone who wants to die. But, why not then just plead not guilty, get your soapbox, and then die. You’d have to explain how the option to plead guilty = forced.

I think this only leads to a more interesting question, could these (very select, OBL type, or OBL himself) guys ever get a fair trial? Anywhere in America, in any type of court? With the most liberal procedures? Start that thread…Jurors feigning impartiality to later get book deals, paid interviews; also risking serious harm to you or your family if you actually didn’t convict; and, is anyone really their peers? ect, ect. I would not be a juror b/c I would easily not convict OBL if the pieces didn’t add up beyond a reasonable doubt, and the result to myself would be catastrophic when the other 11 make sure it’s known I was the “problem”, not them.

20

The whole legal scheme in this mess was designed to produce convictions rather than fair trials. From the article I linked in the OP:

The administration has not announced whether it will continue with the Sept. 11 case in the military commissions or charge some of the men in federal court. Officials involved in the process said that lawyers reviewing the case have said that federal-court charges against four of the men might be possible, but that the evidence might be too weak for a federal court case against one of the five, Walid Bin Attash, a veteran jihad fighter who was known as Khallad.*

Any defendant deserves a fair trial, in open court. If the State does not have, or is unwilling to produce, evidence of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, the defendant gets to walk. That’s the foundation of our criminal justice system. What we’re being asked to accept here is the government says these are bad guys, but the government is ashamed of what they’ve done to reach this conclusion, so we should just trust the government and not bother with all those messy legal technicalities.

I can not accept that premise. If we do this to the GITMO detainees, even if we say it is only for the ones who planned 9/11, we will do it again in the future, against someone else, and it will be an easier pill to swallow because of the precedent set here.