Trials for Guantanamo prisoners?

So, Bush (finally) wants to have trials for all the dangerous terrorists he’s got locked up in Guantanamo Bay. Trouble is, he’s been told by the Supreme Court that it would be illegal to use military tribunals as he wanted (they’re so convenient, because the usual rules of due process don’t apply). So, like any good leader of a free democratic nation would do, he’s going to change the law so that he can hold trials that are even less accountable than normal military tribunals would be! Indeed, his proposals are apparently so extreme that even the military lawyers are opposing his plans as unduly unfair. (Quotations from an article in the Washington Post.)

A draft Bush administration plan for special military courts seeks to expand the reach and authority of such “commissions” to include trials, for the first time, of people who are not members of al-Qaeda or the Taliban and are not directly involved in acts of international terrorism, according to officials familiar with the proposal.
The plan, which would replace a military trial system ruled illegal by the Supreme Court in June, would also allow the secretary of defense to add crimes at will to those under the military court’s jurisdiction…
Under the proposed procedures, defendants would lack rights to confront accusers, exclude hearsay accusations, or bar evidence obtained through rough or coercive interrogations. They would not be guaranteed a public or speedy trial and would lack the right to choose their military counsel, who in turn would not be guaranteed equal access to evidence held by prosecutors.
Detainees would also not be guaranteed the right to be present at their own trials, if their absence is deemed necessary to protect national security or individuals.

As Ed at Dispatches from the Culture Wars says:

This isn’t the ACLU objecting (though they do), it’s the JAG corps [the legal arm of the US military]. In particular, it’s their top uniformed officers in the JAG corps, one of whose recently retired members summed up the administration’s position this way:
“We know you’re guilty. We can’t tell you why, but there’s a guy, we can’t tell you who, who told us something. We can’t tell you what, but you’re guilty.”
Can you imagine anything more contrary to our constitutional system than that?

(Thanks to Chris for the tip.)

pax et bonum

Article posted at 7:25pm on 04 August 2006
Category: Links, Politics, General

Bush hates having the supreme court “legislate from the bench” (as he says), but he doesn’t hesitate to rewrite the laws himself, if it gives him more power. He loves adding “signing statements” to legislation informing everyone his intentions to not follow the law.

Next I expect him to announce that he is actually the Messiah, and we will have to apply the classic case to decide whether he’s a liar, a madman, or a savior. Well, I think the last one’s ruled out simply by the fact that he’s not fulfilling any scripture (unless he’s filling the anti-Christ role – eek!), so….we’re left with two choices now…

Chris (TX) () (URL)
9:02pm on 04 August 2006