What A Tangled Web
I've often used the metaphor of Lewis Carroll's crazy tea party in discussing the Bush Administration and its profoundly disturbing effect on this country and the world. I appear to be in good company: columnist Tim Rutten uses the same trope in discussing the confessions of the five Gitmo detainees charged with masterminding the 9/11 attack.
Start with the fact that the newly installed judge in the case, Army Col. Stephen R. Henley, said that even though the defendants had submitted a written pleading more than a month ago announcing their intention to take precisely this step, he had not had a chance to consider its legal implications because the security arrangements prevented even him from reading any communication from the accused except in a secure location like Guantanamo.
The defendants wrote that they wanted to stop filing any further legal motions and "to announce our confessions to plea in full."
Let's get this straight: This tribunal operates under rules that deem an Army colonel appointed to preside over the capital trial of five human beings insufficiently trustworthy to read a pleading from the defendants in all but a guarded physical location. This is a court that is not entered by a door but through a looking glass: Clean cup, clean cup. Move down, move down. Off with their heads.
Henley, meanwhile, has his own perplexities. He isn't sure whether he can accept the defendants' guilty pleas because the statute under which these so-called military tribunals are constituted isn't clear on whether the death sentence can be pronounced on a defendant who pleads guilty rather than being found that way by a jury of military officers.
Imagine a judge presiding over an American court who is uncertain of his discretionary powers under the law. That is the appalling point to which the Bush/Cheney administration's willful contempt for the Constitution and internal standards of due process has brought us.
Now, it's clear these five men are no angels. One, Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, has bragged not only about his role in 9/11, but also his role in the grisly murder of Daniel Pearl. The problem is that in a real court of law, some, perhaps all, of them might not get convicted because of how much of the evidence in the case was obtained. Bush/Cheney know this, and all five of the detainees know this. At this point, martyrdom is much more preferable than a fair trial, something which this nation used to guarantee. The shoddily constructed Military Commission system allows the defendants to play out their extremist ideology to the full as a recruiting tool.
As Mr. Rutten points out, this is another fine mess that President Elect Obama will inherit. The obvious way to circumvent the defendants' ploy is for Mr. Obama to follow through on his promise to shut down Guantanamo Bay, transfer all of the prisoners to the US, and then move the trials from the dog-and-pony show system currently in place to real courtrooms, with real guarantees of fairness and justice.
I know. That's totally 9/10 thinking. It's just that I think we were doing much better with that kind of approach.
Start with the fact that the newly installed judge in the case, Army Col. Stephen R. Henley, said that even though the defendants had submitted a written pleading more than a month ago announcing their intention to take precisely this step, he had not had a chance to consider its legal implications because the security arrangements prevented even him from reading any communication from the accused except in a secure location like Guantanamo.
The defendants wrote that they wanted to stop filing any further legal motions and "to announce our confessions to plea in full."
Let's get this straight: This tribunal operates under rules that deem an Army colonel appointed to preside over the capital trial of five human beings insufficiently trustworthy to read a pleading from the defendants in all but a guarded physical location. This is a court that is not entered by a door but through a looking glass: Clean cup, clean cup. Move down, move down. Off with their heads.
Henley, meanwhile, has his own perplexities. He isn't sure whether he can accept the defendants' guilty pleas because the statute under which these so-called military tribunals are constituted isn't clear on whether the death sentence can be pronounced on a defendant who pleads guilty rather than being found that way by a jury of military officers.
Imagine a judge presiding over an American court who is uncertain of his discretionary powers under the law. That is the appalling point to which the Bush/Cheney administration's willful contempt for the Constitution and internal standards of due process has brought us.
Now, it's clear these five men are no angels. One, Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, has bragged not only about his role in 9/11, but also his role in the grisly murder of Daniel Pearl. The problem is that in a real court of law, some, perhaps all, of them might not get convicted because of how much of the evidence in the case was obtained. Bush/Cheney know this, and all five of the detainees know this. At this point, martyrdom is much more preferable than a fair trial, something which this nation used to guarantee. The shoddily constructed Military Commission system allows the defendants to play out their extremist ideology to the full as a recruiting tool.
As Mr. Rutten points out, this is another fine mess that President Elect Obama will inherit. The obvious way to circumvent the defendants' ploy is for Mr. Obama to follow through on his promise to shut down Guantanamo Bay, transfer all of the prisoners to the US, and then move the trials from the dog-and-pony show system currently in place to real courtrooms, with real guarantees of fairness and justice.
I know. That's totally 9/10 thinking. It's just that I think we were doing much better with that kind of approach.
Labels: Guantanamo Bay, Justice
posted by Diane at 4:03 AM
3 Comments:
This tribunal operates under rules that deem an Army colonel appointed to preside over the capital trial of five human beings insufficiently trustworthy to read a pleading from the defendants in all but a guarded physical location.
I can't prove this, but I don't think the rule is about the trustworthiness of the judge. The rule is about the transmittal of messages written by detainees. If the concern was over Col. Henley's ability or willingness to keep a secret, he wouldn't be permitted to see the information under any circumstances. The rule is much more likely designed to prevent third parties from intercepting such messages.
According to a commentor @ Eschaton some time back, Khalid Shaikh Mohammed also shot JR.
The rule is much more likely designed to prevent third parties from intercepting such messages.
That is an interesting possibility. Of course, it's equally possible that the messages are falsehoods to begin with, and would appear to be so if subjected to open scrutiny. Hence they are tightly withheld from such examination, even by the judge who must rule based upon them.
Whatever this is, it is not justice.
Post a Comment
<< Home