Internal War On Tribunals
Posted on July 26, 2006
Yesterday, USAToday wrote that there remains an internal debate within the Administration on the path forward regarding tribunals for unlawful combatants but a proposal would be presented soon:
“Still under discussion this week is whether the White House will agree with GOP senators to base a new effort on the military’s court-martial system, which would afford terror suspects certain rights, or to champion legislation that would authorize the Pentagon’s more stringent existing tribunal system.”
This morning, The New York Times leaked information on the competing plan that would have the wholesale support of the Officers in the field that would have to carry out any new rules:
“Legislation drafted by the Bush administration setting out new rules on bringing terror detainees to trial would allow hearsay evidence to be introduced unless it was deemed “unreliable” and would permit defendants to be excluded from their own trials if necessary to protect national security
The 32-page bill preserves the idea of using military commissions to prosecute terror suspects and makes modest changes in their procedural rules, including several expanded protections for defendants, many of them drawn from the military’s legal code.
The draft measure describes court-martial procedure as “not practicable in trying enemy combatants” because doing so would “require the government to share classified information”
Rather than requiring a speedy trial for enemy combatants, the draft proposal says they “may be tried and punished at any time without limitations.” Defendants could be held until hostilities end, even if found not guilty by a commission.”
The two extremely important provisions from my perspective:
“Nor does the bill adhere to the military’s rules for the admissibility of evidence and witnesses because “the United States cannot safely require members of the armed forces to gather evidence on the battlefield as though they were police officers,” the proposal says.
The draft measure says explicitly that the Geneva Conventions “are not a source of judicially enforceable individual rights,” meaning that in the future, terror suspects like Salim Ahmed Hamdan, a Yemeni held at Guantánamo whose case resulted in the Supreme Court ruling, cannot file lawsuits saying their Geneva Convention rights were violated.”
It is now up to the Members of the House of Representatives to “support the troops” by supporting this particualr plan. I have the utmost confidence they will deliver.
» Filed Under News, War On Terror
Trackback URL
