Almost Got It Right
Ruth is traveling for about a week, so her posting may be a bit sporadic. With that in mind, I ventured into what is usually her territory, the Washington Post editorial page, to see just what might have piqued her outrage for today. I was stunned to find an editorial condemning the Guantanamo Bay trials which almost got it right.
The frame for the editorial was a comparison between the legal process accorded Zacarias Moussaoui, who was tried in Federal Court, and the five detainees who are being "tried" in military commissions at Gitmo.
IT'S NOT SURPRISING that the five detainees facing military commissions at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, for their alleged roles in the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks would complain about being put on trial. Like Zacarias Moussaoui, the al-Qaeda operative who pleaded guilty in U.S. federal court to charges of conspiring to kill Americans, these men rail against the U.S. government, question the legitimacy of the military commissions and reject court-appointed lawyers. Some also claim to have been tortured. But unlike Mr. Moussaoui, the five on trial in Guantanamo have a point.
Actually, they have several points, but that aside, the most important point at this stage of the process is the denial of due process in preparation for the trial:
Mr. Moussaoui's lawyers were permitted to review all of the evidence against him, although at times that evidence was subject to special procedures to protect classified information. The detainees' lawyers face far greater restrictions, and the detainees are prohibited from seeing or responding to certain evidence that may prove crucial to their defense. ...
Here's where the editorialist goes slightly off track, and, unfortunately, it's at the conclusion:
The Supreme Court is expected to rule this month on whether those at Guantanamo have a constitutional right to challenge their detentions in federal court; if the justices rule in the detainees' favor, they may very well render moot all of the proceedings at Guantanamo. In that case, Congress and the administration should remake the system to provide detainees with as many as possible of the protections that are available in federal court. This would not only bolster the legitimacy of the proceedings, it would also help to restore the image of the United States in the eyes of the world. [Emphasis added]
"As many as possible"?
How about all of the protections, including knowing the precise charge with which they are being charged, the suppression of evidence obtained through torture and other illegal means, the right to confront their accusers, the right to view and respond to the evidence being used against them, the right to attorneys and judges whose futures are not dependent on the proceedings?
In fact, how about abolishing the entire dog-and-pony show trials completely. Why not transfer all of the trials to Federal Court after closing the Guantanamo Bay gulag and moving the detainees to federal prison to await their trials. That would be a much better start "to restore the image of the United States."
Like I said, WaPo almost got it right. Let's hope the Supreme Court and Congress finish the job.
The frame for the editorial was a comparison between the legal process accorded Zacarias Moussaoui, who was tried in Federal Court, and the five detainees who are being "tried" in military commissions at Gitmo.
IT'S NOT SURPRISING that the five detainees facing military commissions at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, for their alleged roles in the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks would complain about being put on trial. Like Zacarias Moussaoui, the al-Qaeda operative who pleaded guilty in U.S. federal court to charges of conspiring to kill Americans, these men rail against the U.S. government, question the legitimacy of the military commissions and reject court-appointed lawyers. Some also claim to have been tortured. But unlike Mr. Moussaoui, the five on trial in Guantanamo have a point.
Actually, they have several points, but that aside, the most important point at this stage of the process is the denial of due process in preparation for the trial:
Mr. Moussaoui's lawyers were permitted to review all of the evidence against him, although at times that evidence was subject to special procedures to protect classified information. The detainees' lawyers face far greater restrictions, and the detainees are prohibited from seeing or responding to certain evidence that may prove crucial to their defense. ...
Here's where the editorialist goes slightly off track, and, unfortunately, it's at the conclusion:
The Supreme Court is expected to rule this month on whether those at Guantanamo have a constitutional right to challenge their detentions in federal court; if the justices rule in the detainees' favor, they may very well render moot all of the proceedings at Guantanamo. In that case, Congress and the administration should remake the system to provide detainees with as many as possible of the protections that are available in federal court. This would not only bolster the legitimacy of the proceedings, it would also help to restore the image of the United States in the eyes of the world. [Emphasis added]
"As many as possible"?
How about all of the protections, including knowing the precise charge with which they are being charged, the suppression of evidence obtained through torture and other illegal means, the right to confront their accusers, the right to view and respond to the evidence being used against them, the right to attorneys and judges whose futures are not dependent on the proceedings?
In fact, how about abolishing the entire dog-and-pony show trials completely. Why not transfer all of the trials to Federal Court after closing the Guantanamo Bay gulag and moving the detainees to federal prison to await their trials. That would be a much better start "to restore the image of the United States."
Like I said, WaPo almost got it right. Let's hope the Supreme Court and Congress finish the job.
Labels: Guantanamo Bay, habeas corpus, Justice
posted by Diane at 4:21 AM
2 Comments:
Word!
Agreed.
Post a Comment
<< Home