Third Guantanamo Prosecturo Quits

[a_unique_person]

http://theage.com.au/articles/2005/08/03/1122748669671.html

A third US military prosecutor has quit the military commission process under which Australian David Hicks will be tried, over concerns it is unfair.

US Air Force Captain Carrie Wolf has chosen to take a reassignment along with other prosecutors, ABC radio reports.

The news follows the release of emails by two former prosecutors who say the Guantanamo prosecutions are rigged to ensure guilty verdicts against mainly low-level suspects.

Foreign Minister Alexander Downer says Australia had asked for an explanation of the criticisms in the emails and been told the matter had been investigated and the commission process cleared.

As Hicks' trial on terrorism charges looms, Attorney-General Philip Ruddock says US prosecutors will produce witnesses to testify against the Adelaide man who has been detained at Guantanamo Bay for nearly four years.

.....

Prosecutor quits

The ABC said Captain Carrie Wolf asked to leave the Office of Military Commissions at the same time as the two email authors, Major Robert Preston and Captain John Carr.

It was understood Captain Wolf had shared her colleagues' concerns about the military commission process.

Major Preston and Captain Carr said in their leaked memos that the evidence gathered against four detainees, including Hicks, was "half-assed".

The emails have prompted criticisms from the Law Council of Australia, the federal Opposition, and the Australian defence Forces' to lawyer, Captain Paul Willee, who said if the allegations were true, the process was a "charade".

Even prosecutors want out. No wonder I have no confidence in this 'tribunal'.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Why do these prosecutors hate freedom so much?

 

[slingblade]

Re: Re: Third Guantanamo Prosecturo Quits

Why do these prosecutors hate freedom so much?

Huh?

 

[CBL4]

This illustrates one of the most often misunderstood parts about the US justice system. Military lawyers and judges take law seriously and actually believe in justice. If I were innocent, I would much rather be given a military trial than a civilian one. I would be pretty much guaranteed a fair trial for the crime that was committed with reasonable people deciding my fate.

The one thing I find puzzling about this is why the military prosecutors resign instead of preventing unjust trials. I thought they had that right.

CBL

 

[Cleopatra]

I would much rather be given a military trial than a civilian one. I would be pretty much guaranteed a fair trial for the crime that was committed with reasonable people deciding my fate.

I am shocked after I read that. I am somebody who has written articles against military trials and how military courts must be abolished because the offend every notion of democracy but I don't live in your country. Therefore I am curious as to what Amateur Scientist has to say about your post.

 

[The Fool]

This illustrates one of the most often misunderstood parts about the US justice system. Military lawyers and judges take law seriously and actually believe in justice. If I were innocent, I would much rather be given a military trial than a civilian one. I would be pretty much guaranteed a fair trial for the crime that was committed with reasonable people deciding my fate.

The one thing I find puzzling about this is why the military prosecutors resign instead of preventing unjust trials. I thought they had that right.

CBL

Would you also much rather spend nearly four years in prison without charge waiting for your prefered system of justice to see if they can figure out what it is you were supposed to have done? What is "justice" delayed called again?

 

[CBL4]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
I am shocked after I read that. I am somebody who has written articles against military trials and how military courts must be abolished because the offend every notion of democracy but I don't live in your country.

In the US prosecutors and judges are typical politicians who need to appear tough to be elected or promoted. This conflict of justice vs. self interest frequently leads to massive injustice. Lawmakers frequently pass unjust laws in response to one case. Jurors are chosen because of their ignorance.

In the military, the prosecutors, judges and jurors are well trained and have been been trained to follow the law and act honorably. This training does not always take but it generally does. Politicians are much more willing to allow the military to take the heat for their own decision rather than meddle.

When the Bush administration originally planned to have military tribunals with very limited rights the only people madder than libertarians were the military justice people. They refused to the Bushcroft absurdities and insisted on relatively fair trials.

I agree that military tribunals offend the idea of democracy but in the US, an innocent defendant is better off with the military rather the civilian injustice system.

CBL

 

[CapelDodger]

I am shocked after I read that. I am somebody who has written articles against military trials and how military courts must be abolished because the offend every notion of democracy ...

I too am shocked, and it takes a lot.

CBL4: I am gob-smacked by your latest response. "Lawmakers" are otherwise known as elected representatives, responsible at the ballot-box to the electorate. The trials that are going ahead, despite the disgust clearly felt by military lawyers with whom, presumably, the training did not take, are procedurally jerry-built . Just a layman's opinion, of course, I'm no lawyer. Jeebus ...

 

[CBL4]

Originally posted by the FoolWould you also much rather spend nearly four years in prison without charge waiting for your prefered system of justice to see if they can figure out what it is you were supposed to have done?

This was a deplorable, unconstitutional decision made by civilians. In other words, it was a problem with the civilian justice system not the military one.

Are generals calling people "enemy combatants" or civilians? Bush, Ashcroft and Rumfeld are the originators of this and also are the leaders of the "torture is OK" crowd. All the military officers I know find this situation unjust and intolerable. I will grant you that too many military personnel were involved in torture but I think there were many more civilian (e.g. CIA) involved. Also, the military to a large degree policed itself (too little and too late) which is more than can be said for the civilians.

I would much rather put my fate in the hands of a military officer rather than a politician.

CBL

 

[CapelDodger]

I would much rather put my fate in the hands of a military officer rather than a politician.CBL

My advice is, quit the thread now or it'll hang off your future career like nets around a Russian sub.

 

[The Fool]

This was a deplorable, unconstitutional decision made by civilians. In other words, it was a problem with the civilian justice system not the military one.

If these allegations are true then it is most definitely a problem with the military justice system. If the military justice system is not independent of political fixing then it is deficient. Its unlikely to be deficient if used for its intended purpose of enforcing internal good order and military discipline.....but only because politicians are probably not interested in who urinated in the mess hall or having the results stacked to match thier political agenda.

I understand the vital importance of having the military subordinate to the executive so I fail to see how military tribunals can ever be seen as independent of politican influence....may as well have these guys tried by the ruling political party.



I would much rather put my fate in the hands of a military officer rather than a politician.

I would rather my fate was in the hands of an independent judiciary.

 

[Cylinder]

I suppose some one should point out that military tribunals are the international standard for these trials as is detention of enemy combatants for the duration of a conflict.

 

[a_unique_person]

I suppose some one should point out that military tribunals are the international standard for these trials as is detention of enemy combatants for the duration of a conflict.

And that even the prosecutors have no faith in this one.

 

[The Fool]

I suppose some one should point out that military tribunals are the international standard for these trials as is detention of enemy combatants for the duration of a conflict.

couple of questions....

for the duration of what conflict?

what "international standard" are you referring to?

edit to add: I really mean which conflict.... as "what conflict" may imply I'm suggesting there is no conflict.....

 

[Rob Lister]

hating to be a potential party poopper but...

The news follows the release of emails by two former prosecutors who say the Guantanamo prosecutions are rigged to ensure guilty verdicts against mainly low-level suspects.

is there another source?

 

[The Fool]

hating to be a potential party poopper but...



is there another source?

http://abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200508/s1426797.htm

 

[Rob Lister]

http://abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200508/s1426797.htm

Wow. Aug 1. Here it is aug 10 and I've heard nothing whatsoever about this.

This should be top, top, top headlines on at least a few networks here (There's is a boring news cycle going on).

I hope you don't mind my skepticism but this should have broken by now.

Don't get me wrong. The article, to me, rings a bit true (except for most of it). I'd just like to see it followed up.

So, by 'other sources', I don't mean repeated assertions of the same thing, I mean independent confirmation of the "leaked emails" and associated actors.

 

[The Fool]

Wow. Aug 1. Here it is aug 10 and I've heard nothing whatsoever about this.

Patience, rob...patience!

These e-mails are claimed to have originated from particular people...they are not "unnamed sources" rubbish.

The Australian Attorney General has said he will investigate so I imagine the claimed authors will be asked about them....

Its difficult to find more than one prime source for a story about something leaked to one prime source but I'm sure the quality of the emails will be determined...after all, the supposed authors are named.

 

[Cylinder]

couple of questions....

for the duration of what conflict?

For captured Taliban combatants, it would mean active combat operations in Afganistan. For captured al Qaeda combatants, it would be mean active combat operations against that organization.

Both are covered by the Authorization for Use of Military Force, though in Rumsfeld v. Hamdan, the 4th Circuit ruled that they are seperate conflicts. At some future point, the president will report to Congress under the War Powers Act of 1973 that operations against one (or both) of those entities are complete.

what "international standard" are you referring to?

Article 84 of the Third Geneva Convention, for starters:

Art. 84. A prisoner of war shall be tried only by a military court, unless the existing laws of the Detaining Power expressly permit the civil courts to try a member of the armed forces of the Detaining Power in respect of the particular offence alleged to have been committed by the prisoner of war.

 

[The Fool]

For captured Taliban combatants, it would mean active combat operations in Afganistan. For captured al Qaeda combatants, it would be mean active combat operations against that organization.

And for those that are not captured combatants? I'm not sure if you have already released all the ones you took from the streets (nowhere near combat) as nobody will say where they all came from.... are you able to say that the remaining people are all combatants? Captured on a battlefield?

And also can you tell me if these commitments as to when "hostilities" will be regarded as over for certain categories of people at gitmo is a commitment from the US government or a commitment from you?


Both are covered by the Authorization for Use of Military Force, though in Rumsfeld v. Hamdan, the 4th Circuit ruled that they are seperate conflicts. At some future point, the president will report to Congress under the War Powers Act of 1973 that operations against one (or both) of those entities are complete.

which "entities" are the operations against? I'm not trying to be pedantic here but the answer, as far as I can see it is that the US will be at "war" for as long as it wishes to say it is at "war".




Article 84 of the Third Geneva Convention, for starters:

Hang on there....these people seem to bounce in and out of the classification of "prisoner of war" to suit the occasion....which is it pow or not pow?.....