Nuremberg?
As the first trials at Guantanamo Bay approach, Nat Hentoff takes aim at the clumsy administration attempt to liken the upcoming show trials to Nuremberg, where the world felt comfortable enough to provide complete due process to such Nazi leaders as Hermann Goering, Albert Speer, Joachim von Ribbentrop and Rudolf Hess.
With preparations begun for the first military-commissions trial for detainees at Guantanamo -- six "high-level" prisoners who could get the death penalty -- the customary attacks on the fairness of the proceedings there are mounting here and abroad. Adding to the discord is the refusal of Brig. Gen. Thomas Hartmann, legal adviser for the military commissions, to exclude any evidence against the defendants that has been extracted through waterboarding. ...
In Sen. Christopher Dodd's superb book, "Letters from Nuremberg: My Father's Narrative of a Quest for Justice" (Crown, 2007), he quotes his father, Thomas Dodd, who became the No. 2 prosecutor in the American team at Nuremberg: "Those of us who were privileged to serve at the Nuremberg Trial are proud of the entire proceeding. ... Every right of the defendants was scrupulously observed. They were given every possible opportunity to make every explanation and every possible defense.
"Witnesses were obtained for them merely at their request.
Documents were made available, library facilities were at their disposal, and throughout every hour of the trial they were afforded every opportunity to answer every charge." As others and I have reported, the procedures at Guantanamo -- by glaring contrast -- are the very opposite of those at Nuremberg.
The Nazis had vigorous lawyers waging their defense; they were able to talk to lawyers in private without a video camera watching; and all their correspondence and notes were not handed over to the military. [Emphasis added]
By 1945, the world had come to realize the full horror of Nazi death camps, yet it was possible, even necessary to accord those monsters every facet of due process to show just how important the rule of law is to civilization. The prosecutors at Nuremberg did not fear acquittals, they openly embraced the possibility.
Contrast that with what is planned for Guantanamo Bay, where coerced confessions obtained by torture will be admissible; where defendants will never get to confront their accusers; where up to this point they don't even know exactly what they are charged with.
Guantanamo Bay just like Nuremberg?
I don't think so.
With preparations begun for the first military-commissions trial for detainees at Guantanamo -- six "high-level" prisoners who could get the death penalty -- the customary attacks on the fairness of the proceedings there are mounting here and abroad. Adding to the discord is the refusal of Brig. Gen. Thomas Hartmann, legal adviser for the military commissions, to exclude any evidence against the defendants that has been extracted through waterboarding. ...
In Sen. Christopher Dodd's superb book, "Letters from Nuremberg: My Father's Narrative of a Quest for Justice" (Crown, 2007), he quotes his father, Thomas Dodd, who became the No. 2 prosecutor in the American team at Nuremberg: "Those of us who were privileged to serve at the Nuremberg Trial are proud of the entire proceeding. ... Every right of the defendants was scrupulously observed. They were given every possible opportunity to make every explanation and every possible defense.
"Witnesses were obtained for them merely at their request.
Documents were made available, library facilities were at their disposal, and throughout every hour of the trial they were afforded every opportunity to answer every charge." As others and I have reported, the procedures at Guantanamo -- by glaring contrast -- are the very opposite of those at Nuremberg.
The Nazis had vigorous lawyers waging their defense; they were able to talk to lawyers in private without a video camera watching; and all their correspondence and notes were not handed over to the military. [Emphasis added]
By 1945, the world had come to realize the full horror of Nazi death camps, yet it was possible, even necessary to accord those monsters every facet of due process to show just how important the rule of law is to civilization. The prosecutors at Nuremberg did not fear acquittals, they openly embraced the possibility.
Contrast that with what is planned for Guantanamo Bay, where coerced confessions obtained by torture will be admissible; where defendants will never get to confront their accusers; where up to this point they don't even know exactly what they are charged with.
Guantanamo Bay just like Nuremberg?
I don't think so.
Labels: Due Process, Guantanamo Bay
posted by Diane at 3:59 AM
3 Comments:
Gitmo's relation to Nuremburg will come after the trials, not during.
As an attorney for two unfortunate men being held at gitmo I thank you for your piece regarding the lack of anything even remotely similar to due process at the base.
I think I also recall that the men at Nuremberg were not tortured while in custody? Nor were they provided with health care while awaiting trial? And they were able to visit with their families while in custody?
Rather than showing the importance of the rule of law ...Guantanamo shows how easy it is to take away the rule of law...
not with a bang but a whimper.
Thank you for your comments. I would like to add where will Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, et. al. be having their Nuremberg? Quantanamo Bay sounds deliciously justifiable to me.
Imagine the war crimes these degenerates from the Bush Administration can and should be charged with? Mind you, I'm not sure that Cuba could handle all that filth in one spot. Oh, wait a minute, Washington has been coddling all these vermin for more than 7 years. Hmm...
Post a Comment
<< Home