Military wants terror suspects to see evidence against them. Bush says no

[bigtree]

Sunday, August 27, 2006

http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2006/08/us-military-lawyers-encounter-white.php


US government lawyers and US military lawyers are butting heads as the White House attempts to limit the role of the latter in framing draft legislation that would change the rules for trials of suspected terrorists, the Boston Globe reported Sunday. The military lawyers are particularly concerned about not allowing detainees to see the evidence against them, which many say violates the Geneva Conventions.

The Bush administration, however, has limited discussion regarding the issue, arguing that disclosing some evidence during military tribunals could pose a threat to national security. The same logic was used in March when the Miami federal judge presiding over the trial of terror suspect Jose Padilla severely restricted the disclosure of evidence containing classified material using the Classified Information Procedures Act . However, the judge in the case later decided in an unorthodox move to allow Padilla to view classified documents because the indictment against him was "light on facts" linking him to specific terrorist acts.

The tension between the government and the military lawyers is thought to be the result of what has been called an effort by White House political appointees to exercise greater control over career military legal experts. Military tribunals in general have been a controversial topic lately; in June, the US Supreme Court struck down the White House's military tribunals system, prompting the drafting of new legislation.


The Boston Globe has more: http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2006/08/27/military_lawyers_see_limits_on_trial_input/?page=1

[MissWaverly]

1. what a joke

of course, they have a right to see evidence against them, this is Joe McCarthy all over again.

[Eric J in MN]

2. How can a man defend himself without seeing the evidence

..against him?

We shouldn't have military trials for people who never served in the US military.

We have a civilian court system which convicted Timothy McVeigh, Zacharias Mousaui, and John Walker Lindh.

[rubberducky]

3. After reading the entire article........

It sounds as if these "trials" will be little more than a kangaroo court. You are not allowed to see the evidence against you??

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

4. Bring the GUILTY! party in for a Fair Trial.

"..with Freedom and JUSTICE for all."

[madokie]

7. when I was in the service I got hauled in for some little infraction

don't remember exactly but I remember being told if I wasn't guilty I wouldn't be there to begin with, I just threw my hands up and said Oh Kaaay. I was guilty without any recourse. I feel for these guys caught up in the bush* war.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

8. Evindence? We don't need no steenkin' evidence!

I made Private, twice, while doing my 4 years in the Marine Crotch. The joke was, "Bring the guilty man in for a fair trial", whenever any of got busted for some infraction that the bosses decided was in need of an example.

When I was on deployment to Taiwan, the rice paddies surrounding the base was crawling with Marines looking to swap whatever they could mangage to steal for homemade "brandy" (one ingredient being kerosene) and women. Some other drunks stole a truck and went joyriding. Me and another guy who had scored some brandy got picked up for the truck theft. When they discovered that some other guys had went for the joyride, they busted us for "possesion of contraband" (the brandy that we had clung to when they caught us). A few days later they raided the tents everyone was living in. They gave up collecting the "brandy" after 247 bottles of the rotgut was discovered. Nobody was prosecuted for the simple reason that hauling in about 80% of the Squadron for "possesion of contraband" was untenable and would be a real black-eye for the Colonel.

The other occasion of my removing my stripes was for being 30 minutes AWOL after having missed a bus. The Article 15 was in front of the Executive Officer in another outfit. He was kind enough to say something like, "There's been too many guys coming back late from weekends. You just got unlucky and got caught when we needed someone to scare the other guys."

Military Justice is like Military Intelligence - an oxymoron.

[Arkham House]

5. How can anyone be in doubt any more about their motives...?

To call the Bush regime "fascists" is not hyperbole, it is not exaggeration, it is not "left-wing extremism"--whatever the hell that's supposed to mean...it is simple, empirical fact. And when are the Dems going to be more concerned with this simple truth, than they are worrying about what the MSM thinks of them...?

[msongs]

6. the democratic party of the USA Inc wishes you wouldnt talk like that

as an organization it does not seem to have any plans to make theft of the nation, destruction of the constitution, and the fascist takeover of the government now in progress to be an election issue.

however, since I am not a part of the big shots of the democratic party of the USA INC, just a rebellious small time punk member,

I AM WITH YOU and ashamed our party does not mention these inconvenient things more often. I must admit, as I believe so believe most of the local dems I know.

Msongs
www.myspace.com/msongs

[ContraBass Black]

9. Doesn't anybody read the Constitution or GC anymore?

Come on.

[Az_lefty]

10. WTF?

do these ass-hats have any understanding or respect for our system of justice? Oh never mind, I know the answer.
:puke:

[Disturbed]

11. Military trials are now a mere formality regarding "Terrorists".

The detainees got caught. They are guilty. Nuff said.

[bigtree]

12. they know they can't get solid evidence outside of the military account

at this point . . . so, they want to limit the amount of evidence they have to produce. Look at Padilla's case. There was so little solid evidence against him that the judge pointed it out to him.