From The Washington Post
Democratic vice presidential nominee John Edwards said yesterday that a John F. Kerry administration would scrap the military commissions created by President Bush to try suspected al Qaeda and Taliban fighters detained at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and would instead establish a new system modeled on military courts-martial. "The Bush administration has ignored the model of the military courts-martial. We will use that model as a basis for future trials of detainees," Edwards said in a statement e-mailed in response to a question posed to him over the weekend. "We will ensure that this process, from the quality of translators to the treatment of evidence to the selection of judges, is handled with the seriousness and competence that is essential for such sensitive national security cases." ...
Critics have charged that the commission rules favor the government, and that, among other things, they allow hearsay evidence and permit exculpatory evidence to remain secret from defendants. .... By shifting to a court-martial approach, Kerry would have appeals handled by a court of appeals for the armed forces, which is independent of prosecutors and the Defense Department. The appeals process, like most other procedures in a military trial, is almost identical to that of a civilian trial. ...
| Not to point out the obvious, but enemy troops aren't subject to U.S. military courts martial. They're intended to enforce the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Enemy troops are subject to their own rules and regulations, in the present case shariah law. Military tribunals are intended to enforce the laws of war, wich fall neither under the UCMJ nor under shariah, but may be codified in the Geneva Conventions and various international agreements. I think what Edwards is proposing is a mere change in the procedures used, which would appeal to his fastidious lawyer's soul and give him something to talk about, while implying that what's being done now is wrong. |
|