I just heard the USAF colonel who's prosecuting the Gitmo detainees

Last Tuesday, I attended a continuing legal education (CLE) session presented by Col. Morris D. Davis, the Air Force officer who’s in charge of the prosecutions of 10 of the 490 detainees now held at the U.S. base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

Col. Davis spoke in the moot courtroom of Case Western Reserve University School of Law, here in Cleveland. So many people attended, there was overflow seating in another classroom.

Davis seemed like a nice guy, but said little that would reassure anyone concerned that the detainees won’t receive due process of law. He readily conceded that the detainees aren’t being tried in U.S. district courts – as “American Taliban” John Walker Lindh was, for instance – because the evidentiary standard would be too high there (rather than conviction requiring “proof beyond a reasonable doubt,” at Gitmo it’s “evidence that is probative of guilt”). He also admitted that some detainees may be held until they die, without being either charged or tried.

Davis’s speech was accompanied by a PowerPoint presentation that began with images of the Kenya and Tanzania embassy bombings, the near-sinking of the USS Cole, and 9-11. He emphasized that the U.S. is now at war, and that military tribunals have been used before (in the Civil War and WWII). He originally volunteered to represent some of the detainees, but was instead assigned to lead the prosecution team.

The basic structure of the tribunals had already been determined by the time he was assigned. “I didn’t build the railroad, but I have to run the train,” he said. Some future cases may be capital cases; none of the 10 now designated for trial are. He said of the 187 detainees already released without charge and returned to their native countries, 10 have since been been recaptured or killed while bearing arms against the U.S. or its Coalition partners.

He was emphatic that conditions are Gitmo are humane and respectful of the detainees. He is regularly in touch with the International Committee of the Red Cross, Amnesty International, the ACLU, and the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE). The Belgian rep of OSCE said, after a tour, that the Gitmo detainees are better cared-for than they would be in Belgian prisons. (Don’t know if that says more about Belgian prisons than it does about Gitmo). Torture is prohibited, and evidence may not be used before a tribunal if it was gained through “undue coercion,” which he conceded, when pressed, he could not define.

There was a lively but respectful Q&A. He said that the detainees aren’t entitled to Geneva Convention protection because they were not a) part of a clear chain of command, b) wearing uniforms when captured, or c) carrying weapons openly, all of which (as he interprets the law) are required before the GC provisions apply. The GC shouldn’t be scrapped, he said, but “could use some freshening up.”

Col. Davis has been a JAG officer for 22 years and noted several times that, since he’s close to retirement, he is virtually immune to “command influence” (i.e. pressure from superiors), and can quit if he becomes convinced that the process is going awry. He looked uncomfortable and didn’t really have an answer when someone asked about the options of less-senior military lawyers who come to the same conclusion.

He pledged that the military commissions will work, will provide due process of law, and will be “full, fair and open, and produce a just result.”

Unfortunately, I can’t say he convinced me.

Comments? Questions?

Did he seem convinced himself? Could you tell if he himself believed it would be “full, fair and open, and produce a just result” or not?

(CLE) session presented by Col. Morris D. Davis, the Air Force officer who’s in charge of the prosecutions of 10 of the 490 detainees now held at the U.S. base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

first of all, that is cool as shit–I’ve never gotten anybody more interesting than a Super court judge in cle.

That said, it is beyond depressing to contemplate the perversion of any semblance of due process that is offered by your distinguished presenter as a matrix for justice.

Gagh!

Considering that it is public record that they force feed detainees at Gitmo, and that the American Medical Association doesn’t approve of their techniques in particular (which require chair restraint) or in general (patients have a right to refuse food), this is demonstrably false. Let alone the fact that the detainees feel they have to resort to hunger strikes.

Cite:

Col. Morris D. Davis is acting in a public relations role, visiting your campus. His claims that there is a legal justification for the United States to imprison people without charging them with a crime for the span of their lives (whether they end naturally or unnaturally, he didn’t say) are absurd on the face of it.

“Full, fair and open, and produce a just result,” is insulting to everyone who hears it. In what sense are they open if these people don’t even have access to representation? How could they possibly be just if these people are not even charged with a crime?

The statistic that “He said of the 187 detainees already released without charge and returned to their native countries, 10 have since been been recaptured or killed while bearing arms against the U.S. or its Coalition partners.” is meaningless. Is that supposed to be a justification for what they are doing? Is he suggesting that the violent actions of the detainees after release have nothing to do with the detainment?

Everything about Col. Morris D. Davis’ expressed view point stinks of spin. How can anyone with a legal education entertain what he said, let alone say it?

Dear God in heaven, you’re an attorney?

One question for the OP. What charges are they being tried for? Is it a simple determination whether each individual qualifies as an “enemy combatant”? What happens if they are found to be ec’s?

Thanks.

:dubious: So, under the current version of Geneva, if you capture a bunch of soldiers in their underwear, they’re not protected?

Well, open is falsifiable. Are they open or aren’t they?

So, as many as 177 were let go because* they were there by mistake.*

If they are all fighting in the same underware, that would count as a uniform. But the condition they are ‘caught’ in does not come into play, the standard operating process for that unit does. These are covered under the Geneva Conventions, the Hague Accords, and the UN charter; pretty universal.

No, they simply haven’t been found to be guilty. Guilt can be proven, innocent is a bit more difficult.

Well of the 10 that were “recaptured or killed” - how do you know they were guilty before they went to Gitmo?

I think it’s entirely conceivable that someone who was in the wrong place at the wrong time and was detained by the US for years, then might try to “get back” at the US after their release.

Gitmo could be creating more terrorists/enemy combatants than it captures in the first place.

Could very well be, then again it could be ‘reciticism’. We will likely never know. We do know a number of those ‘captured’ were guilty of terrorism. Not a fun age we live in, is it?

Dear God in heaven, you’re an attorney?

my secret shame…

I’ve been wondering this myself. Are we even planning to charge these guys with anything or are we simply making the determination of whether to detain them or not? Do we expect to get to a point where we “sentence” any of these detainees?

To me, it appears that they are given an opportunity to prove they are innocent (lucky them!), and if they can do that we let them go. Alternatively, we can decide that they are no longer useful in providing information about terror activities and then let them go. One huge problem is what to do with the ones we let go-- often their home countries simply don’t want them back.

considering the treament at gitmo, one might well conclude that anyone released after three years of unwarranted abuse who did not come back at us lost his balls as well as his liberty while there…

This seems to me susceptible of a really simple solution: let them live anywhere in the united states that they want, and give them a stipend of 100 k per year. Don’t we owe them?

Does this mean the other 480 are not being prosecuted, and just left to rot? This whole Gitmo thing might perfectly well be considered as a living-history demonstration of WHY WE HAVE A CONSTITUTION IN THE FIRST PLACE. Because honestly, at this point the military might just as well go the trial-by-immersion route with the detainees. It would be about as fair.

  • the military might just as well go the trial-by-immersion route with the detainees.*

zounds! a security breach! You have divulged next month’s procedural innovation before talking points distribution to Limbaugh and O’Reilly.
Fox security will be at your door tomorrow. Loose lips, and all that.

The thing is, if these guys really are treated as POWs, and they really were Taliban soldiers, then under the Geneva conventions we can hold them indefinately even if they never commited any “crime”. You can detain enemy soldiers, even if they never fired a shot against the US, merely for being members of the enemy army. They only need to be held until the war is over.

So there are three categories of prisoners here. Mistaken identity cases, where some farmer got captured by mistake (or malice) who should be released as soon as possible. Taliban soldiers, who can be held indefinately until the war is over, which will probably be 80 years from now, but who can’t be charged with any crime. And war criminals who can be prosecuted and sentenced to prison (or even death), even if the war itself is officially over. If those accused war criminals are also Taliban soldiers they can still be held as POWs, if they aren’t Taliban soldiers then they must be presumed to be innocent bystanders.

The trouble is that the US government doesn’t seem to be in any hurry to decide which category any particular detainee falls into. Given the fact that most fighters in Afghanistan weren’t members of a regular army but rather militia groups, it makes it hard to determine exactly what their status should be.

For $100K a year, I’ll move to Afghanistan and chant “Death To America!”

Did Col. Davis give any hint as to why he originally volunteered for the defense, rather than for the prosecution?

I’m far cheaper, for a mere $30k a year I’ll move to Acrrington Stanley and exclaim, “Oh jolly bad show you Americans”