View Full Version : Looks like the charges against GITMO detainees aren't holding up to the rule of law..


spyderman
06-04-2007, 08:09 PM
These cases may have been thrown due to technicalities, but it shows how the system they've devised doesn't stand up to the rule of law.

Many think this is a major problem for ALL the GITMO cases.

Heckuva job Bushie! What a clusterf*ck!!!



Judges at Guantanamo Throw Out 2 Cases (http://apnews.excite.com/article/20070605/D8PID5Q80.html)

Jun 4, 11:03 PM (ET)

By ANDREW O. SELSKY

GUANTANAMO BAY NAVAL BASE, Cuba (AP) - Military judges dismissed charges Monday against a Guantanamo detainee accused of chauffeuring Osama bin Laden and another who allegedly killed a U.S. soldier in Afghanistan, throwing up roadblocks to the Bush administration's attempt to try terror suspects in military courts.

In back-to-back arraignments for Salim Ahmed Hamdan of Yemen and Canadian Omar Khadr the U.S. military's cases against the alleged al-Qaida figures dissolved because, the two judges said, the government had failed to establish jurisdiction.

They were the only two of the roughly 380 prisoners at Guantanamo charged with crimes, and the rulings stand to complicate efforts by the United States to try other suspected al-Qaida and Taliban figures in military courts.

Hamdan's military judge, Navy Capt. Keith Allred, said the detainee is "not subject to this commission" under legislation passed by Congress and signed by President Bush last year. Hamdan is accused of chauffeuring bin Laden's and being the al-Qaida chief's bodyguard.

The new Military Commissions Act was written to establish military trials after the U.S. Supreme Court last year - ruling in a case brought by Hamdan - rejected the previous system. Defense attorneys argued the new system is full of problems.

The judges agreed that there was one problem they could not resolve - the new legislation says only "unlawful enemy combatants" can be tried by the military trials, known as commissions. But Khadr and Hamdan had previously been identified by military panels only as enemy combatants, lacking the critical "unlawful" designation.

The surprise decisions do not spell freedom for the detainees, who are imprisoned here along with the others suspected of links to al-Qaida and the Taliban.

"It is very difficult when practical conditions for him don't change," Joseph McMillan, one of Hamdan's civilian attorneys, told reporters Monday night. Hamdan's military attorney, Navy Lt. Cmdr. Charles Swift, said Hamdan "is relieved" by Allred's ruling.

"He hopes he gets a fair trial and, like the rest of us, is patiently waiting for it," Swift said.
Khadr was 15 when he was captured after a firefight in Afghanistan in 2002 in which he allegedly killed a U.S. soldier and was wounded himself. He is now 20.

Khadr, appearing in the courtroom with a beard and wearing an olive-green prison uniform, seemed uninterested when his judge, Army Col. Peter Brownback, threw out the case. Khadr focused on his own image on a computer screen that showed a live TV broadcast of the proceedings.

The chief of military defense attorneys at Guantanamo Bay, Marine Col. Dwight Sullivan, said the dismissal of the case against Khadr could spell the end of the war-crimes trial system hurriedly set up last year by Congress and Bush after the Supreme Court threw out the previous system.

But Army Maj. Beth Kubala, spokeswoman for the Office of Military Commissions that organizes the trials, said "the public should make no assumption about the future of military commissions."

She said they will operate openly and fairly and added that dismissals of the charges "reflect that the military judges operate independently."

Legal experts said Brownback apparently left open the door for a retrial for Khadr, and that the Defense Department can possibly fix the jurisdictional problem by holding new "combat status review tribunals" for any detainee headed to trial.

Sullivan said the dismissal has "huge" impact because none of the detainees held at this isolated military base in southeast Cuba has been found to be an "unlawful" enemy combatant.

"It is not just a technicality; it's the latest demonstration that this newest system just does not work," Sullivan told journalists. "It is a system of justice that does not comport with American values."

The Military Commissions Act specifically says that only those classified as "unlawful" enemy combatants can face war trials here, Brownback noted.

The distinction is important because if they were "lawful," they would be entitled to prisoner of war status, which under the Geneva Conventions would entitle them to the same treatment under established military law that U.S. soldiers would get.

A Pentagon spokesman said the issue was little more than semantics.

Navy Cmdr. Jeffrey Gordon told The Associated Press said the entire Guantanamo system was set up to deal with people who act as "unlawful enemy combatants," operating outside any internationally recognized military, without uniforms, military ranks or other things that make them party to the Geneva Conventions.

"It is our belief that the concept was implicit that all the Guantanamo detainees who were designated as 'enemy combatants' ... were in fact unlawful," Gordon said.

Sullivan said that reclassifying detainees as "unlawful," will require a time-consuming overhaul of the whole system. But Gregory McNeal, a law professor at Pennsylvania State University, said nothing prevents the Defense Department from reconvening hearings for detainees headed to trial and declaring them to be "unlawful" combatants.

Carl Tobias, a law professor at the University of Richmond, said a retrial is possible because Brownback dismissed Khadr's case without prejudice. Hamdan's case was also dismissed without prejudice.

Prosecuting attorneys in both cases indicated they would appeal the dismissals. But the court designated to hear the appeals - known as the court of military commissions review - doesn't even exist yet, Sullivan noted.

At the Khadr family home in Toronto, Khadr's sister Zaynab said she hoped the ruling would lead to his release.

"It seems like good news. I guess someone is starting to actually look at the charges and at him as a person rather than just the fact he's allegedly the enemy of the United States," the 27-year-old said in a telephone interview.

U.S. Rep. Jerrold Nadler, a New York Democrat, said he plans to hold hearings on the Military Commissions Act, which he said is "riddled with problems and created a process that operates outside the rule of law - it has crippled our ability to deal with the real criminals still being held at Guantanamo."

The only other detainee charged under the new system, Australian David Hicks, pleaded guilty in March to providing material support to al-Qaida and is serving a nine-month sentence in Australia. Sullivan said the dismissal of the Khadr case raised questions about the legitimacy of Hicks' conviction.

Brownback ruled only minutes into Khadr's arraignment on charges of murder in violation of the law of war, attempted murder in violation of the law of war, conspiracy, providing material support for terrorism and spying.

"The charges are dismissed without prejudice," Brownback pronounced.

The U.S. military has hoped to accelerate its prosecutions of Guantanamo detainees, with the Pentagon saying it expects to eventually charge about 80 of the prisoners held at this isolated base. Now, delays seem likely.

Hamdan was charged with conspiracy for his alleged membership in al-Qaida, his purported role in plotting to attack civilians and civilian targets, and material support for terrorism - he is accused of transporting at least one SA-7 surface-to-air missile to shoot down U.S. and coalition military aircraft in Afghanistan in November 2001.

mohair_chair
06-05-2007, 07:00 AM
If the cases were thrown due to technicalities, that would, by definition, show how the system stands up to the rule of law.

MR_GRUMPY
06-05-2007, 08:08 AM
These people should never have been taken prisoner in the first place. If they were out of uniform, and they had weapons, they become "fair game" to stand up against a wall. It's too late for that now, so we just have to follow the law. Once their classification is changed, things can proceed.

atpjunkie
06-05-2007, 08:08 AM
If the cases were thrown due to technicalities, that would, by definition, show how the system stands up to the rule of law.

but the system shouldn't take 5 years of imprisonment to figure that out

spyderman
06-05-2007, 08:31 AM
If the cases were thrown due to technicalities, that would, by definition, show how the system stands up to the rule of law.

By whose "definition?" Do "detainees" in America sit in prison for five years before they get to see a judge? Do we have to redesign our legal system?

IF the legal system was working, the detainees would've gotten their day in court, and the cases would've moved foreward and not been thrown out based on technicalities... :rolleyes:

Like I said, the system doesn't stand up to the rule of law.

Jesse D Smith
06-05-2007, 10:15 AM
If the cases were thrown due to technicalities, that would, by definition, show how the system stands up to the rule of law.

Bush isn't to blame. It's the faulty rule of law that's to blame. Obviously, we gots ta change the rule of law.

Snakebit
06-05-2007, 11:56 AM
Just don't take any more prisoners. That should uncomplicate things pretty well.

FondriestFan
06-05-2007, 01:15 PM
In Snakebit's world, taking the wrong prisoners is better than taking no prisoners at all.

atpjunkie
06-05-2007, 01:20 PM
In Snakebit's world, taking the wrong prisoners is better than taking no prisoners at all.

would prefer them just shot en masse and bulldozed into a ditch

Snakebit
06-05-2007, 01:26 PM
would prefer them just shot en masse and bulldozed into a ditch

Not necessarily bulldozed into a ditch, just leave them where they fall and let their relatives come claim the bodies....................or the American left.

atpjunkie
06-05-2007, 01:38 PM
Not necessarily bulldozed into a ditch, just leave them where they fall and let their relatives come claim the bodies....................or the American left.

we leave their heads up on pikes
or just crucify them along the road?

that will teach them

I dunno what, but it will

teach them to not do nothing and get ratted out for something

greggJ
06-05-2007, 01:38 PM
American left? What American left are we talking about? There hasn't been a real American Left in this country (of any consequence) since the end of the Great Depression. In my view, nowadays there is simply the far right wing nut jobs (read current administration and their supporters) who are convinced that the rule of law comes out of the barrel of a gun (gee, where did I hear that before?), and the middle right wing nut jobs, who find it mildly disturbing that the rule of law appears to be coming out of the barrel of a gun, but allow it anyway. American Left...pure fantasy my friend!

Snakebit
06-05-2007, 01:42 PM
American left? What American left are we talking about? There hasn't been a real American Left in this country (of any consequence) since the end of the Great Depression. In my view, nowadays there is simply the far right wing nut jobs (read current administration and their supporters) who are convinced that the rule of law comes out of the barrel of a gun (gee, where did I hear that before?), and the middle right wing nut jobs, who find it mildly disturbing that the rule of law appears to be coming out of the barrel of a gun, but allow it anyway. American Left...pure fantasy my friend!

If you're serious about locating the American left, I think you should look to your right. :wink:

Snakebit
06-05-2007, 01:47 PM
we leave their heads up on pikes
or just crucify them along the road?

that will teach them

I dunno what, but it will

teach them to not do nothing and get ratted out for something

Now you're talking. Pikes are a great idea, I don't think they have enough bridges left for hanging after Shock and Awe. Wouldn't want to clog the rivers either.

FondriestFan
06-05-2007, 03:11 PM
Not sure where greggJ's coming from on this one. Maybe he lives in Texas or something.

Snakebit
06-05-2007, 03:17 PM
Not sure where greggJ's coming from on this one. Maybe he lives in Texas or something.

Naw, sounds like California.

FondriestFan
06-05-2007, 03:18 PM
You're probably right. He writes in complete sentences.

Then again, he's completely wrong, which screams Texas to me. :D

Live Steam
06-05-2007, 07:53 PM
Take them out back and ......!

Kinda' sad that someone would gloat over this. It would be just as sad if I were to say something like I hope if one of these animals instigates or abets another terrorist strike, that you would be a casuality of it. That would be pretty sad, right?

We could never win another World War should one ever errupt. We would have lost WW2 is the libs and the liberal media had anything to say about it, too.

I may change to the other side so I'm with the winning team. Hey! Maybe that's what libs are planning to do all along. But look how that turned out for the proletariat. I'm sure that didn't seem like such a good idea after the fact. Libs here would have jumped in with both feet.

spyderman
06-05-2007, 08:19 PM
Take them out back and ......!

Kinda' sad that someone would gloat over this. It would be just as sad if I were to say something like I hope if one of these animals instigates or abets another terrorist strike, that you would be a casuality of it. That would be pretty sad, right?

We could never win another World War should one ever errupt. We would have lost WW2 is the libs and the liberal media had anything to say about it, too.

I may change to the other side so I'm with the winning team. Hey! Maybe that's what libs are planning to do all along. But look how that turned out for the proletariat. I'm sure that didn't seem like such a good idea after the fact. Libs here would have jumped in with both feet.

Yeah, that's because they're all guilty, right? You might recall the 800+/- detainees they released wholesale a few years back?

Iraq is NOT WWII. Iraq is not a legit war. If we had a legitimate war we would kick arse again. A smart man once said "you bring a country to war, not just the military." Your leadership failed. Your leadership lied. Your leadership sucks ass! And a lot of innocents have died because of it!

How many of the current Republitards have served in the military? Bush? Cheney? Cheney said he knew where the WMDs are, so where are they? Cheney said "the insurgency was in the last throes..." Bush declared "Mission Accomplished." So, why are we still there?

BTW, nice way to crawl out from under your rock.