| Submit your comments on this article | ||
| Home Front: WoT | ||
| Military reviews begin for Gitmo detainees | ||
| 2005-07-21 | ||
All of the nearly 600 prisoners, many of whom have been held at the base for more than two years, will have the opportunity to appear before these tribunals, Navy Secretary Gordon England told reporters at the Pentagon. "We'll start today. There will be at least one today," he said, adding that he hoped there would eventually be three tribunals holding up to 24 hearings a week and that the whole process would be complete within 120 days. Each hearing, England stressed, would be a "fact-based administrative proceeding ... not a trial." It would determine whether the person detained had been correctly designated an enemy combatant or The controversial decision to hold the detainees as enemy combatants, rather than regular prisoners of war, has left them in what critics say is a legal black hole, without any means -- until now -- to challenge their detention. The tribunals will "review information surrounding the capture of the detainee ... and any other pertinent information related to the designation as an enemy combatant," according to a statement from the Pentagon, which carefully avoids using the word "evidence." After the hearing, the tribunal -- of three officers -- will deliberate, and make a recommendation. The recommendation and the record of the hearing would be reviewed by a military lawyer, Cmdr. Beci Brenton, a U.S. Navy spokeswoman told United Press International, to ensure that they were "legally sufficient." The lawyer's recommendation and that of the tribunal would be passed to Adm. James McGarrar, who will either approve the tribunal's decision or order a re-hearing. If detainees are found not to be enemy combatants, the military "will then work with the Department of State for arrangements to return that person to their home country," England told reporters. Those found to be combatants will remain in detention. Detainees will not be obliged to appear before the tribunals, but if they do, they will have the "opportunity to work with a personal representative" appointed by the military "to assist in preparing" their case, according to the Pentagon statement. But Brenton pointed out that these representatives would not be lawyers, nor would they be the detainee's advocate. "There's no confidentiality," she said, "If the detainee tells them anything incriminating, they are obliged to pass that on to the tribunal." She added that the tribunals' length would vary, according to the complexity of the case, but acknowledged that -- in some cases -- the unclassified portion could be as brief as 30 minutes.
The Pentagon statement adds that detainees will be provided with interpreters if necessary and will have the right to review the unclassified information available to the tribunal, question witnesses, and -- providing they are "reasonably available" -- call witnesses and present information themselves. "It is for the president of the tribunal to determine what 'reasonably available' means on a case by case basis," a defense official who asked not to be named told UPI. "Obviously, if the detainee wants to call a person and their last contact with that person was in a mountain village in Afghanistan with no roads or telephones, we are not going to be able to get them." The official said that the military was exploring alternatives to personal appearances by witnesses, like videotaped depositions and written affidavits. The tribunals are separate from the military commissions, which later this summer will begin to hear charges in the handful of cases of detainees against whom the United States has sufficient evidence to launch a prosecution. The commissions will be able to impose sentences up to and including death, and their verdicts will be subject to review by a military panel. The tribunals are also separate from -- though connected to -- the writs of habeas corpus that every detainee was given the right to file by the Supreme Court last month. The hearings on those writs, which are being filed in the U.S. District Court in Washington, will likely turn on whether the review tribunals meet the test laid down by the Supreme Court in another case, that of Yasser Esam Hamdi. In the Hamdi case, the court said that U.S. citizens detained as enemy combatants had a right to "due process" -- a legal term meaning a fair hearing with the right to put their side of the story to a neutral adjudicator. "Although the Guantanamo detainees are non-citizens," Eugene Fidell, president of the National Institute for Military Justice, told UPI, "everyone is assuming that (the Hamdi case) is where the courts will look for guidance in terms of what the test should be." | ||
| Posted by:Steve White |
| #3 Kill 'em then put them on trial. It's much faster and less messy. |
| Posted by: Captain America 2005-07-21 16:16 |
| #2 These fucksticks are breaking my heart. I have an idea, summary executions. Then they won't be in a legal black hole. |
| Posted by: bigjim-ky 2005-07-21 08:28 |
| #1 Bzzt. Everyone in Gitmo has already had a hearing to establish whether they're unlawful combatants or not. The next round of hearings is, as far as I know, to establish whether they are executed or not. |
| Posted by: Robert Crawford 2005-07-21 08:16 |