RSS 2.0 FeedJustice Behind Closed Doors
by Doug MataconisIsn’t justice at all:
Military tribunals are scheduled to begin Friday for 14 high-value foreign terrorism suspects held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, but the hearings to determine whether they are enemy combatants will take place behind closed doors because of the risk that top-secret information could surface, defense officials said yesterday.
The hearings will be the first secret Combatant Status Review Tribunals at Guantanamo; similar proceedings for hundreds of other detainees have been open to news media.
The hearings were to be the first time men such as Khalid Sheik Mohammed — the alleged architect of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks — made public appearances since their arrests and years-long detention in secret CIA facilities.
Instead, the 14 detainees will face separate three-officer panels out of view and without a lawyer. They will each have a government-provided personal representative and the opportunity to address the tribunals. None of the men has seen anyone other than his captors, except for representatives of the International Committee of the Red Cross who visited shortly after their arrival in September.
Quite honestly, I don’t doubt that the men who will be tried by these tribunals are guilty of plotting attacks against the United States and against American citizens. That, however, isn’t the point.
The Rule of Law means something. And it’s meant something since the Magna Carta in 1215. One of the things it’s come to mean is the idea that people can’t be held indefinitely without being charged with a specific crime and without the benefit of counsel.
The Bush Administration has sought to evade these requirements by arguing that the detainees at Guantanamo are enemy combatants and that the rules which would normally restraint prosecutors are not applicable.
Even if one accepts that argument, the idea that convictions would be obtained behind closed doors and without the accused being provided the opportunity to retain an attorney to represent them goes against everthing the American legal system is based upon.
If public hearings would truly jeopardize national security, then I would have to say that their “rights†would have to be secondary.
Comment by Stephen Littau — March 7, 2007 @ 2:57 pmHow about closing the parts of the tribunal that disclose sensitive information while keeping most of it open?
Comment by Kevin — March 7, 2007 @ 3:11 pmBut this is not about the American legal system. It is about what to do with enemy combatants during a time of war.
I would go with Kevin’s solution. I don’t think it would be hard to publicly present some of the things that KSM has done. It would not have to be everything. I think it would be super-easy to show that this guy deserves to be where he is. So why not do it?
Comment by tkc — March 7, 2007 @ 3:16 pmExactly, from what I understand, what I propose is done all the time in espinonage and other national security related cases in civilian courts.
Comment by Kevin — March 7, 2007 @ 3:44 pmWhat’s wrong with all of you? This person was abducted and held without rights, in violation of the Constitution.
I hope you are next – as you may well be, . .
Comment by george kamburoff — March 10, 2007 @ 12:17 pmWhat’s wrong with all of you? This person was abducted and held without rights, in violation of the Constitution.
Comment by see you — March 10, 2007 @ 1:01 pmI hope you are next – as you may well be, . .
Comment by george kamburoff — March 10, 2007 @ 12:17 pm
==there´s nothing wrong with all …americans! they LOVE their imperial president they have twice elected! that´s it.period