More concerns over fairness of military tribunals for Gitmo detainees
(posted by Paige)
As the military presses forward with its plans to try six detainees, the defense assigned to the case faces significant obstacles to providing adequate representation while adhering to the policy framework of the military tribunals. According to an article from the Associated Press, only one military lawyer has been appointed so far to handle the defense for all six cases, with scant support from a small handful of civilian lawyers and paralegals. The following excerpt lists a series of concerns voiced by the defense counsel:
The problems underscore broader concerns that military tribunals — expected to eventually try some 80 Guantanamo detainees — overwhelmingly favor the prosecution, Army Col. Steve David, the chief defense counsel for the war-crimes trials, told The Associated Press.
He said his team faces a variety of disadvantages, including trial rules that allow classified hearsay testimony against the detainees and the fact that prosecutors can use material gathered over years while the men have been in custody — before the defense has even begun to look for its evidence.
It is certainly possible that the detainees are guilty of contributing to the September 11 attacks, and deserve punishment. But what is the sense in holding a mock trial? If the evidence against them is strong enough to warrant the death penalty, which the military is aiming for, why not give them due process? As critics have pointed out, including the former chief prosecutor for military commissions at Guantanamo Morris Davis, the route which the military is now taking can only damage both the moral standing of the United States (aren’t we the ones forcefeeding democracy and rule of law to countless countries around the globe?) and our reputation among enemies and allies alike. What does rule of law really mean if it is seen as our own government as malleable in the midst of policy goals?
Interestingly, a separate article in the Washington Post announced yesterday that China has agreed to open discussion with the United States about the rising economic giant’s alleged human rights abuses. If it seems ironic to me that the US has appointed itself as the world’s human rights police, how must it look to other countries? Apparently, our government is not too worried about that.