If you do a google search on “abbasi your conduct is unacceptable,” you can find what appears to be a transcript of the exchange.
It looks to me as though Abbasi repeatedly made an ass of himself, first preaching about Islamic Law; then claiming that Al-Quaeda was not responsible for the 9/11 attacks; then making statements about the Geneva Convention.
The tribunal kept trying to tell Abbasi to stick to the facts of what he did or didn’t do in Afghanistan.
I don’t know if Abbasi was treated fairly or not, but I think it’s worth keeping in mind that in many parts of the world, someone who behaved that way would be taken out and summarily shot. And no, I don’t have a cite for that.
Anyway, read the transcript and decide for yourself.
If you force untrained people to represent themselves this is what you get. If you allow people to have representation by trained, legal advocates you greatly reduce the incidence of such things.
And I don’t think the US should make its behavior contingent on what would be done “in many parts of the world.” The boast ot this administration, and many before it as well as countless laudatory speeches, is that we have a superior regard for individual rights and go out of our way to see that they are granted to all. Some of those rights are the right to face your accuser, to not be held in detention for an indefinite period, to have a speedy and public trial, and to be represented by counsel.
The claim is that 9/11 changed everything. Well, I buy the need for increased alertness but there’s a lot of the crap that I don’t buy.
I agree. And I don’t have any problem with letting these folks have advocates.
I agree with this too. And I don’t even have a problem with people who single out the US for criticism even though other countries behave much worse. The tolerance of criticism is part of what makes the US such an excellent (and superior) nation.
Can you quote the relavent section? I scanned the article quickly, but didn’t see anything that said that tribunals were held w/o the prisoners having access to counsel. I do know that there is a contingent of military lawyers there specificall to represent these guys, but I can’t claim to know that any were present at this guy’s particular hearing. (“Contingent” might not be the right word. I’m going from memory and I think to was 2 or 3 lawyers. I’ll see if I can dig up a cite later.)
I’m not happy with the process that’s being used in Gitmo, so don’t get me wrong. I’m just trying to get the facts straight in this particular case.
I don’t have exact information and I don’t think anyone else does either. That is one of the most egregious faults. The US government has established a secretive detention facility and installed it’s underlings to work both sides of the aisle. I don’t see how “a contingent of military lawyers,” government underlings, can adequately represent prisoners in defense against the government that makes the charges.
The US has charged that the Red Cross was given an opportunity to visit GB and declined. However the Red Cross claims that the opportunity was more in the nature of a Potemkin Village exercise and that their inspectors weren’t free to go wherever they chose and talk to whomever they chose.
Secrecy is always the enemy of truth and, as conservatives love to argue about things like warrentless wiretaps, if the US is doing nothing wrong at GB what’s the objection to having a completely free and open inspection of the place by outside observers?
On the one hand, these are military tribunals, so you might need to have a military lawyer represent you. OTOH, I do agree that if it were me, I’d at least like to have the option of choosing who my advocate is.
I don’t agree that the Red Cross should be able to “go wherever they chose and talk to whomever they chose.”
I agree, but keep in mind that there have been LOTS of visitors to Gitmo including quite a few Democratic Congressmen/women.
Actually, the safer bet is that he did. Your article, btw is from 2002. From a more recent New York Times article:
This also means that the detainees have access to other than the “government underlings” assigned to them.
Additionally, you were incorrect in stating that the Red Cross didn’t visit Guantanamo. NYT Link. They haven’t had a lot of nice things to say (note the link title: “Red Cross Finds Detainee Abuse in Guantánamo”), but the article clearly states that there have been multiple visits by the Red Cross since 2002.
We still have a long way to go in cleaning up this progress, but there is reason to optimistic since things do seem to be improving (in part because of judicial rulings against the Bush administration).
In order for it to be cleaned up, those in charge really need to see that it needs cleaning up. If they don’t see that, foot dragging and minimum compliance will be the order of the day. Andrew Jackson proved that the courts have no real power over an executive that ignores their orders. I don’t see any evidence yet that SecDef and the President see any real need for change.
I don’t either. The OP should be aware that w/o the US legal system, there would be little if any progress made at that detention center. Pit Bush over Gitmo, but not “the entire US Justice system”-- they’re the good guys on this issue.
BTW, I bet you were thinking about the UN Human Rights Commission earlier when you reference the Red Cross. They issued a report about a month ago calling for the US to close Gitmo, and they didn’t visit the facility because they claimed the US wouldn’t give them the access they required.
Right. A judge can’t jump in. The issue has to be brought to the court and by someone with standing. That’s what is so frustrating. The military lawyers aren’t going to bring the issue to an outside court. The prisoners can’t because they are in Cuba and few others have standing to sue.
…here are the unclassified Combantant Status Review Tribunals.
It’s a lot of downloading and a heck-of-a-lot of reading, and it will take me a few days to read the lot. But I have one question at the moment, do any of you own this model of digital watch?
All I got from it was a sense that it was not a real court and was unlike any tribunal I have ever known. Everything was stacked against the accused/detained/kidnapped.