Gitmo Panelist Slams Hearing Process

[shemp]

Lt. Col. Stephen Abraham Is First Member Of Military Panel To Challenge Guantanamo Bay Hearings

Kiddies, can you say "Kangaroo Court"?

(AP) An Army officer who played a key role in the “enemy combatant” hearings at Guantanamo Bay says tribunal members relied on vague and incomplete intelligence while being pressured to rule against detainees, often without any specific evidence.

Lt. Col. Stephen Abraham, a 26-year veteran of military intelligence who is an Army reserve officer and a California lawyer, said military prosecutors were provided with only “generic” material that didn't hold up to the most basic legal challenges.

Despite repeated requests, intelligence agencies arbitrarily refused to provide specific information that could have helped either side in the tribunals, according to Abraham, who said he served as a main liaison between the Combat Status Review Tribunals and the intelligence agencies.

“What were purported to be specific statements of fact lacked even the most fundamental earmarks of objectively credible evidence,” Abraham said in the affidavit submitted on behalf of a Kuwaiti detainee, Fawzi al-Odah, who is challenging his classification as an “enemy combatant.”

There's really a simple solution to this: Try them in civilian courts, not military. Let the evidence be seen by civilian juries. These people (those who are actually guilty anyway) are common criminals. What is the Bush administration afraid of? That their "evidence" won't hold up? That large numbers of acquittals will embolden al Qaeda? It's too late for that, they are already plenty emboldened, as events in the formerly peaceful Iraq show.

Abraham said he had no intention of leaving the service. “I have no reason to doubt that the actions I have taken or will take uphold the finest traditions of the military,” he said.

Unlike the actions of Bush, Cheney, Rice, etc., etc., ad nauseam.

 

[WildCat]

There's really a simple solution to this: Try them in civilian courts, not military.

Nope, there's an even simpler and better solution. Hold them until al Qaeda and the Taliban surrenders, or release individual prisoners if they are no longer believed to be a threat (as has already been done in hundreds of cases).

You don't try prisoners captured in a war in civilian courts, unless you want to follow precedents set by 3rd world tinpot dictators the world over.

 

[Cain]

This is what's wrong with liberals: they base their arguments on emotion rather than reason. One of the few functions of government is to protect us from foreign enemies. Read that again: Protect us, not distribute welfare checks.

Suppose these guys are innocent. You have to look at it from the point of a sunk cost: they're even more likely to be pissed off and commit an act of terrorism. The best policy is to wait for this whole thing to wash over and not take any chances. The executive branch can determine if they present any future threat, and release them accordingly. This is much more efficient than the courts and more likely to prevent future attacks like 9/11. And yes, it shows to Al-Qaeda that we have a pair (but I'm sure you don't know what that's like either).

 

[E.J.Armstrong]

The conditions at Guantanamo Bay are representative of the neolunatic rightwing 'torture is OK' thinking that pervades the Bush/Cheney(I am above the law) administration.

It's existence demonstrates that the values of the founding fathers of the USA no longer direct the lunatics running the US government.

It is a crime against humanity and demonstrates that the rule of law is something the US government would rather not have much to do with.

Have you guys ever heard of the principle that you are innocent until proven guilty. Seems not.

 

[E.J.Armstrong]

Nope, there's an even simpler and better solution. Hold them until al Qaeda and the Taliban surrenders, or release individual prisoners if they are no longer believed to be a threat (as has already been done in hundreds of cases).

You don't try prisoners captured in a war in civilian courts, unless you want to follow precedents set by 3rd world tinpot dictators the world over.

What war? The war for US economic prosperity. Get real.

You just want to intern any one you don't like for as long as you like without the rule of law bothering you. That is the action of tyrants.

 

[TragicMonkey]

Suppose these guys are innocent. You have to look at it from the point of a sunk cost: they're even more likely to be pissed off and commit an act of terrorism. The best policy is to wait for this whole thing to wash over and not take any chances. The executive branch can determine if they present any future threat, and release them accordingly. This is much more efficient than the courts and more likely to prevent future attacks like 9/11. And yes, it shows to Al-Qaeda that we have a pair (but I'm sure you don't know what that's like either).

This reminds me of L. Frank Baum's argument in favor of genocide against the Sioux. He recognized that they were greatly wronged by the US breaking all its treaties, but argued that the best course of action would be to follow up with a greater wrong and wipe them out entirely.

If someone is innocent, you don't persecute them because it's convenient. In questions of survival, countries that do such things don't deserve to survive.

 

[gnome]

Nope, there's an even simpler and better solution. Hold them until al Qaeda and the Taliban surrenders, or release individual prisoners if they are no longer believed to be a threat (as has already been done in hundreds of cases).

You don't try prisoners captured in a war in civilian courts, unless you want to follow precedents set by 3rd world tinpot dictators the world over.

I don't know about the Taliban... but al Qaeda is not a hierarchical organization. Who can represent al Qaeda in order to surrender? It's structurally impossible for them to.

I wouldn't expect you to speak in favor of treating them like prisoners of war. Those rules rely on an identifiable end to the formal hostilities. In fact, isn't the whole argument about the Geneva Conventions that they are NOT prisoners of war, and therefore the rules affecting to them don't apply?

Don't get me wrong, I'm not in favor of releasing dangerous individuals without care. I just don't like the semantic and legal games that justify an arbitrary policy.

 

[Comrade Ogilvy]

Just as I thought....

Profession v. Gitmo
Lawyers, military or civilian, see war as just another legal case.

By Andrew C. McCarthy

Continuing to beat the drum for a return to September 10th America, the Washington Post reported on Saturday that a military lawyer, fleetingly involved almost three years ago in assessing whether Guantanamo Bay detainees were properly held as enemy combatants, has now decided the process is “fundamentally flawed.”







The critique of that process, known as the Combatant Status Review Tribunal (CSRT), is offered in an affidavit written for the Gitmo defense bar by Lt. Col. Stephen Abraham, an Army reservist and, of course, a lawyer. It is based on scant experience: For all of six months beginning in late 2004, Lt. Col. Abraham worked in the unit that oversees CSRTs. That’s right: He has had nothing to do with CSRTs for well over two years. He has been uninvolved not only in the hundreds that have taken place since early 2005 but also since the CSRTs began to operate under the two major pieces of legislation that now regulate them. Well into their story, moreover, reporters Carol D. Leonnig and Josh White finally get around to telling us that Abraham’s considered opinion is largely derived from the grand total of one — one! — tribunal he sat on.

That oeuvre is enough for the Post’s headline to squeal that an “Ex-Member” of the tribunals has pronounced “Detainee Panels Unfair.” Naturally, it is also more than enough for Matt McLean, whom we’re told at the end is the “detainee lawyer who first contacted Abraham last week,” to declaim that “[n]ow we can prove” all the “tribunals lack any of the most basic evidence they would have needed to make fair determinations.”

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YTBjYzA0ZDYxYmJlN2RhYmZiYmFlYTUwY2YwM2Q4YmE=&w=MA==