| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front |
| Trials of Terror Suspects ’Imminent’ |
| 2003-10-31 |
| The start of military trials of foreign terrorism suspects held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, is imminent, the Pentagon’s chief prosecutor said on Thursday, while defending a rule allowing the U.S. government to monitor conversations between the defendants and their lawyers. President Bush in 2001 authorized the first U.S. military commission trials of wartime prisoners since World War II. On July 3, Bush designated six foreign captives as eligible for such trials. The Pentagon refused to identify them. Feel the noose, boys? "I think it’s safe to say our start is imminent, soon," Army Col. Frederic Borch, named by the Pentagon to lead the prosecution, told an American Bar Association event. He did not give a specific date, how many defendants would be tried, or the charges involved. The rules set by the Pentagon for the trials have come under sharp criticism from human rights groups and criminal defense lawyers, who doubt the defendants can get fair trials. "Ultimately, I would ask all the critics, wait until we actually start the process so you can see what actually happens," Borch said. That’s no fun for our pomo friends! Defendants tried before the commissions of seven American military officers must be non-U.S. citizens. They are expected to be among the roughly 660 foreign prisoners, most captured in Afghanistan and imprisoned at the U.S. naval base at Guantanamo Bay. No criminal charges have been brought against any Guantanamo prisoners to date. Commission trials are set to be held there. Defendants could face the death penalty if convicted. I imagine there will be a few, too. Critics argue the rules are biased in favor of the prosecution, place unacceptable conditions on the defense and allow for no independent judicial review by civilian courts. "We are now putting forth a system of justice before the world that doesn’t meet either current American or international standards of due process," said Kevin Barry, a renowned expert in military justice and board member of the National Institute of Military Justice. One rule that has drawn particular ire from critics is the government’s right to monitor communications between the defendants and their lawyers. Borch said that even though the rules allow for such monitoring — which many experts consider a breach of attorney-client confidentiality — any information obtained from this could not be used by prosecutors in the case. "Monitoring is security and an intelligence function. It’s not a law-enforcement function," Borch said. "None of this monitored information on a particular accused is going to be used in any trial of that accused." Sounds reasonable. No way we’re going to let lawyers be used as conduits. Air Force Col. Will Gunn, the chief defense lawyer, said he anticipates that defense attorneys will ask that their conversations not be monitored and, if it is permitted, that the defense knows when it is taking place. They told you already — all the time. Each defendant will be assigned a U.S. military defense attorney and also has the right to hire an American civilian lawyer as long as that attorney is deemed eligible by the Pentagon to hear classified evidence and agrees to conditions that include monitoring conversations. Asked about the admissibility in commission trials of hearsay and other evidence barred in U.S. civilian courts, Borch noted that such evidence is allowed by the international court trying war crimes from the former Yugoslavia. I’m sorry, Mr. Barry, what was that about "not meeting international standards" again? He said defense lawyers in commission trials have "the same evidentiary standard," adding: "In other words, all those things that the prosecution may benefit by the admissibility rule, the same thing applies to the defense." That’ll confuse the defendants, I don’t think "fair play" translates into Arabic. |
| Posted by:Steve White |