Hair on Fire
White House proposes 'solution' to Hamdan case
Posted 3:53 pm | Printer Friendly
Since the Supreme Court's Hamdan ruling was issued, and the White House agreed to "revise" its legal procedures for holding detainees, Bush's lawyers have been crafting a proposal for Congress that would become the administration's new policy. To put it mildly, the first draft isn't encouraging.
A draft Bush administration plan for special military courts seeks to expand the reach and authority of such "commissions" to include trials, for the first time, of people who are not members of al-Qaeda or the Taliban and are not directly involved in acts of international terrorism, according to officials familiar with the proposal.
The plan, which would replace a military trial system ruled illegal by the Supreme Court in June, would also allow the secretary of defense to add crimes at will to those under the military court's jurisdiction. The two provisions would be likely to put more individuals than previously expected before military juries, officials and independent experts said.
Got that? The new-and-improved military commissions could consider charges against just about anyone, not for being a suspected terrorist, but for a list of offenses Donald Rumsfeld could add to at his own discretion.
The accused would not have the right to confront their accusers, or to exclude hearsay accusations, or to bar evidence obtained through torture. The right to a public trial, a speedy trial, and to choose your own military counsel would not apply. Indeed, the commission could try the accused without him or her even being there.
The Navy's top uniformed lawyer from 1997 to 2000 told the WaPo that the rules would evidently allow the government to tell a prisoner: "We know you're guilty. We can't tell you why, but there's a guy, we can't tell you who, who told us something. We can't tell you what, but you're guilty."
He's not kidding.
Keep in mind, this isn't just some radical trial balloon (no pun intended), to set up easier negotiations down the road. This draft, the WaPo explained, was already approved by administration attorneys. Military attorneys have balked at the proposal, apparently because of some nagging concern for "due process."
Other experts in constitutional law seem to agree.
Bruce Fein, an associate deputy attorney general during the Reagan administration, said after reviewing the leaked draft that "the theme of the government seems to be 'They are guilty anyway, and therefore due process can be slighted.' " With these procedures, Fein said, "there is a real danger of getting a wrong verdict" that would let a lower-echelon detainee "rot for 30 years" at Guantanamo Bay because of evidence contrived by personal enemies.
In effect, the Bush gang is taking their old policy — the one struck down by the Supreme Court — and putting into legislative form for Congress to approve.
Hit & Run and Unfogged compare Bush's proposal to the star chamber, and given the details, it's hard to disagree.
Posted 3:53 pm | Printer Friendly
Since the Supreme Court's Hamdan ruling was issued, and the White House agreed to "revise" its legal procedures for holding detainees, Bush's lawyers have been crafting a proposal for Congress that would become the administration's new policy. To put it mildly, the first draft isn't encouraging.
A draft Bush administration plan for special military courts seeks to expand the reach and authority of such "commissions" to include trials, for the first time, of people who are not members of al-Qaeda or the Taliban and are not directly involved in acts of international terrorism, according to officials familiar with the proposal.
The plan, which would replace a military trial system ruled illegal by the Supreme Court in June, would also allow the secretary of defense to add crimes at will to those under the military court's jurisdiction. The two provisions would be likely to put more individuals than previously expected before military juries, officials and independent experts said.
Got that? The new-and-improved military commissions could consider charges against just about anyone, not for being a suspected terrorist, but for a list of offenses Donald Rumsfeld could add to at his own discretion.
The accused would not have the right to confront their accusers, or to exclude hearsay accusations, or to bar evidence obtained through torture. The right to a public trial, a speedy trial, and to choose your own military counsel would not apply. Indeed, the commission could try the accused without him or her even being there.
The Navy's top uniformed lawyer from 1997 to 2000 told the WaPo that the rules would evidently allow the government to tell a prisoner: "We know you're guilty. We can't tell you why, but there's a guy, we can't tell you who, who told us something. We can't tell you what, but you're guilty."
He's not kidding.
Keep in mind, this isn't just some radical trial balloon (no pun intended), to set up easier negotiations down the road. This draft, the WaPo explained, was already approved by administration attorneys. Military attorneys have balked at the proposal, apparently because of some nagging concern for "due process."
Other experts in constitutional law seem to agree.
Bruce Fein, an associate deputy attorney general during the Reagan administration, said after reviewing the leaked draft that "the theme of the government seems to be 'They are guilty anyway, and therefore due process can be slighted.' " With these procedures, Fein said, "there is a real danger of getting a wrong verdict" that would let a lower-echelon detainee "rot for 30 years" at Guantanamo Bay because of evidence contrived by personal enemies.
In effect, the Bush gang is taking their old policy — the one struck down by the Supreme Court — and putting into legislative form for Congress to approve.
Hit & Run and Unfogged compare Bush's proposal to the star chamber, and given the details, it's hard to disagree.
posted by Tapir's Rants at 6:32 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home