Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Lawyers say UK Guantánamo Suspect Has No Hope of Fair Trial
The system of US military courts is so politically biased that Binyam Mohamed, a British resident held at Guantánamo Bay, has no prospect of a fair trial, his lawyers said yesterday.
A number of prosecutors appointed by the US defence department have resigned in protest at the procedures' perceived prejudice. Judges presiding over the military commissions, as they are called, have also attacked the way trials have been conducted at the detention centre in Cuba.
Individuals singled out for attack include Pentagon official Susan Crawford, who will play a crucial role in Mohamed's trial, which is expected to start shortly, and her legal adviser, Brigadier General Thomas Hartmann.
Mohamed, 30, an Ethiopian national and British resident, was held in Pakistan in 2002, when he was questioned by an MI5 officer. He was later secretly rendered to Morocco, where he says was tortured by having his penis cut with a razor blade. The US subsequently flew him to Afghanistan and he was transferred to Guantánamo Bay in September 2004.
He denies any connection with terrorism, including claims he was involved in a "dirty bomb" plot, and says any confessions he may have made were extracted during torture.
Colonel Morris Davis, chief prosecutor of the military commissions, resigned from his post a year ago, saying fair trials were impossible and that the system had become "deeply politicised". He said Crawford, the "convening authority" in the Mohamed case, overstepped her role by directing the prosecution in a way that "perpetuates the perception of a rigged process stacked against the accused".
Hartmann was responsible for submitting recommendations about Binyam's case to Crawford, which defence lawyers have not been allowed to see. After US military commission judges ruled that Hartmann improperly influenced prosecutors and used evidence from interrogations that involved coercive techniques, the US defence department last month removed him from his post, where he was directly responsible for preparing individual military trials at Guantánamo Bay. However, he will remain overall director of the commission's operations.
Commenting on the move, Davis said: "Elevating his deputy and leaving him in the process, I'm afraid, will be like the Vladimir Putin-Dmitry Medvedev relationship where there's some real doubt over who pulls the strings."
Andy Worthington of Reprieve, the legal action charity whose lawyers represent Mohamed, said: "The military commission system is a mockery of justice. The case against Binyam Mohamed is irredeemably tainted by its association with Brigadier General Hartmann, and should immediately be dismissed."
The British government is refusing to release information which, Mohamed's lawyers say, would show he had been tortured and that both UK and US security and intelligence agencies knew about it.
- Posted in
39 Comments so far
Show AllI have only one word to say...Hamdan
He got a totally fair trial and a reasonable verdict/sentence http://obsidianwings.blogs.com/obsidian_wings/2008/08/hamdan-verdict.html
If I ever get put on trial I wish I could still get a Military trial...
Ordinarily I'd agree with you, military courts are usually more fair than civil courts, but here, these are not normal military courts. There is too much smoke to deny fire I think.
Maybe you will get your chance, if the Am. people ever have the balls to take back their govt.
Military contractors should be put on trial for aiding and abbetting.
Sure, you have every right to express your views. What you do not have a right to, is a no bid contract with OUR money. To not be answerable to any system of justice, --not civilian nor military, nor the govt of Iraq or the US.
Sure and I bet you would like to be tortured and held against your will for 7 years too.
To: Snowwolf
What was his crime
Why was he kidnapped by the US in the first place
Will it be fair to try the driver of G Bush/Dick Cheney for their crimes
Hamadan was let free by tribunal because the court had no evidence against him
There are two possible sentences in US government/ Pentagon Kangeroo Land and neither are attractive. One is to be 'let free' after 5+ years of illegal detention and the other is to not ever to be let free again. Not to think that after torture and illegal detention that one could be truly free if allowed to leave the concentration camp.
'SnowWolf' appears unable to understand US Injustice at work. A typical American... It's like there is absolutely no element of empathy for the other guy in the typical US citizen. This must be a product of Christian Puritanist brain wash?
Well, what did you expect from this brainless troll? Just ignore him and hopefully he'll go away to post on the Fox News website, where he gets his info from.
I don't believe honesty makes you brainless nor do I believe that SnowWolf has made any secret of his political views, so I wouldn't think you could accuse him of being a troll.
Whats wrong with contrary views on some things?
I agree that its a Military "Commission" system and not outright Courts Martial (which they would not qualify for anyway) but the Hamdan trial convinced me that they are getting fair treatment ...c'mon Thomas...Hamdan THANKED the Jury for treating him fairly and he agreed the verdict was just...
These are Defense tactics to put doubt in the publics mind...they do it in Civil Courts too
I fully expect the Guilty to be found so and the Innocent to walk...it5 took a long time to set this up...give it a chance to work
I left a message for you on the remember Iraq Thread by the way ...did you see?
I don't see the need for a special commission I guess. If they can't be tried in our regular military courts, if they are not prisoners of war, then I feel they should be tried in our civil courts.
The rule of law must apply, it can't be suspended or we lose our freedoms. I'd say I feel strongly that an illegal alien dshould be orosecuted because he broke our laws. I'd say selective compliance or selective prosecution is anarchy. So if I feel that weay about an illegal alien, I can't feel differently about these men.
I wouldn't want to face a court arranged by Chaney and Gonzales, I don't think it would be fair.
"I left a message for you on the remember Iraq Thread by the way ...did you see?"
I did. I'm not surprised. I had almost no doubt that he and the 101 would feel the same about the contractors. Privitization is out of hand and from what I hear, Blackwater is a disgrace. (actually you learned that from him, not me)
Tell him to volunteer for library service when they have patrols like that. I pray for his safe return and all those that serve there.
Stockholm Syndrome is my guess. Or else it's Mr. Hamdan's naturally sunny disposition?
Regardless of what I am a product of Hamdan was picked up with 2 Man-Portable surface to air missile launchers in the cars trunk...is that a dealer option now?
Could I expect to be detained if the Highway Patrol found 2 in my trunk?
This Guy is going to court regardless whether I or you like it...I happen to have some life experience in this area and you don't so I feel he'll be treated fairly...
While you probably Believe Cynthia McKinney's Psychotic rave about the DoD Killing 5000 Prisoners in Louisiana and dumping the Bodies...I guess thats the difference
Hmmm, while you believe all of the propaganda and bold face lies spewed by our governmental and military leaders.
I believe in what I've seen with my own eyes...for 30 years
Where did you see that? Surely she didn't say that?
Its true Thomas...theres video of it
http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=Cynthia+Mckinney+5000&hl=en&emb=0&aq=f#
I think its psychiatric intervention time
I am absolutely astounded. Flabbergasted. I cannot believe someone in her position would lend herself to that kind of absurd he said/she said garbage. So much for her credibility.
Yes...I am also....I have known she was pretty much Radical Left...but Honestly...as a supposedly serious Presidential Candidate...what Voter Demographic is she trying to attract with a story like that?
It's another "well duh!" moment. Of course he has no prospect of a fair trial! The whole purpose of Guantanamo is to evade due process.
let me barf on the sad state of the imperial death machine and its non-justice system
keep in mind if you all had not been illegally invading another sovereign nation none of this would even have happened
ps. enjoy your tax payer funded wall street bailout
hey some one's got to pay for those golden parachutes and apparently your forehead is the one with SUCKER written all over it
cheers, b
Exactly. But here in the good ole USofA, guns and destruction are more highly regarded than humanitarian work and social programs that actually benefit its citizens. If I had enough saved, I would move to another country in a heartbeat.
Allow me to disagree with you a bit. In the first place, though I don't agree with this invasion, it was certainly legal. Saying its not is helping the very people that did it.
Secondly, I believe this economic problem would have happened, Iraq or not. When this bunch of morons started deregulaing our financial system and removing the safeguards that would have made all this impossible, it was almost certain to happen.
And its not as bad as these idiots are saying anyway. But thanks for your good wishes anyway.
Thomas -
I understand your point of view and agree that deregulation caused this mess in the first place. What I do not understand is your point that the US-led invasion was legal, especially in Iraq. I would argue that it was actually criminal because our leaders purposely fabricated information and lied to Congress and the public. As for OBL and his role played in 2001, there has never been any direct evidence to link him to the attacks inside the US. No, war was not the original catalyst for our economic mess, but spending $10 billion per month on it certainly isn't helping the situation, is it?
I agree it was a criminal mistake, there is no doubt of the contrived and fabricated data used to persuade Congress to give the idiot the authority to do it, but they did give it to him. Legal authority was granted by Congress for the idiot to invade Iraq at his descretion. Like it our not, it was legal. Not right, not smart, not even done well, but legal.
Did OBL? Who knows. But he didn't have any real connection with Iraq anyway. And Iraq was certainly not connected with it. There is no doubt it was pre-planned, you simply have to look at Wolfewitz's paper from ther mid nineties to see that. But it was legal.
"No, war was not the original catalyst for our economic mess, but spending $10 billion per month on it certainly isn't helping the situation, is it?"
You got that right. And I'd have our boys out of there by March if I had the authority. I'd also immediately begin getting rid of contractors. Thats a whole nother issue!
Just trying to help clarify, perhaps you could correct me. My understanding is that under international law, the Iraq invasion was illegal. Since the US is a member of the UN and is a signatory of the Geneva accords, aren't the accords treated as law on US soil?
It depends on how you read their resolution. Some say it doesn't give that authority, but the way I read it it does. And at the time there was no question about it (that I remember). Wish it didn't, but it does. In my opinion of course.
I can't agree. Never mind that the resolution is not a declaration of war, which only Congress can provide. That would (and should) end the dispute right there.
Treaties to which we are signatory have the force of domestic law. That is inarguable. We are signatories to the UN Charter. That is also inarguable. Resolutions which say, in effect, "we're not going to obey law X just now" do not magically negate the law. We still have to follow it.
The trouble is that no one in government is terribly interested in enforcing the law, so they're getting away with it. But legal? Piffle. Read the resolution any way you like; we still don't get to invade sovereign nations just because.
Congress has the power to give the President to deploy our troops without declaring war. Same as Korea or any number of other examples. So under our law it was legal.
The UN Resolution read as it was written gives the same permission. You could argue it doesn't, but as written, that was the intent. So, legal.
As to your third point, I certainly agree and I doubt that any future Prsident will be given that permission again. And legal or not we should never have begun a pre emptive war. Certainly not based on the shakey evidence they were using.
There are some limits on how Congress may abdicate its Constitutional mandate to the executive. Korea was technically a UN police action, and was therefore considered under the UN Charter. That is why it was legal. In the present case, the Bush administration (and the Democrats and the mass media and almost everyone else) is calling this a war, and the people on the receiving end of our missiles or white phosphorus understand it for what it is. Only political cowardice by Congress and hubris by the executive makes possible a blank check of the sort we've seen. Nevertheless, hubris and cowardice do not suffice to make an action right or legal in the face of clear language to the contrary. Therefore, I stand by my original statement about declaring war.
I have read the UN resolution in question, I think #1441, and its phrasing is not consistent with previous ones that have authorized military force, and in any case it did not authorize US unilateralism. I argue that precedent means something when considering the legality of a formal act.
The intent to which you refer may have existed in the minds of the Bush administration, but that is no reliable test of anything. It is just as easy to say that the compromise language of #1441 reveals an intent not to summarily let one sovereign nation invade another. Therefore, I stand by my previous statement on that matter as well.
Notwithstanding our disagreement, I thank you for your reply.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/sep/16/iraq.iraq
Iraq war was illegal and breached UN charter, says Annan
Ewen MacAskill and Julian Borger in Washington The Guardian,
Thursday September 16 2004
United Nations secretary general, Kofi Annan, declared explicitly for the first time last night that the US-led war on Iraq was illegal.
Mr Annan said that the invasion was not sanctioned by the UN security council or in accordance with the UN's founding charter. In an interview with the BBC World Service broadcast last night, he was asked outright if the war was illegal. He replied: "Yes, if you wish."
He then added unequivocally: "I have indicated it was not in conformity with the UN charter. From our point of view and from the charter point of view it was illegal."
Mr Annan has until now kept a tactful silence and his intervention at this point undermines the argument pushed by Tony Blair that the war was legitimised by security council resolutions.
You will please pardon me if I don't take Mr. Kofi Annan's opinion. I have no respect for crooks and feel he and G should be sharing a cell.
Did I miss something here. Since when is it legal to kill hundreds of thousand of people. The US has been bombing Iraq since 1991. Some estimates of the dead are as high as 3 million.
I am the first candidate in the country to push for the indictment of Bush. If it was do-able, it would be good to Indict the Congress, too.
Rosemarie Jackowski, Candidate for Vermont Attorney General
First there was the successful consolidation of this nation’s media down to just five controlling corporations. And those corporations all sharing a significant number of their boards of directors with the extractive energy, pharmaceutical/HMO, ag-chem, military-industrial, and other corporations. [excellent source link here.]
Then - The the legalization of “Free-Speech-Zones,” effectively eliminating free-speech in America. [obviously unimportant, as this nation’s lack of real protest, or revolt, proves.]
Then - The elimination of habeas corpus. [a good explanatory link.]
And now - The effective elimination of the Posse Comitatus Act. [explanatory link here.]
Plus - The ‘bailout’ of the sociopathic sneering profiteers, with $700-billion to over $1-trillion of ‘our’ money, which the Senate just passed - You did you notice that - right? [The 32 Words link.]
And during all of that - The successful transfer of this nation’s entire wealth, (and the control of that wealth,) into the hands of the-very-few. [good get-ya-started link here.]
Yet - Even with all of the exposed, and verified, proof - No revolt -
Says a lot about our nation - Doesn’t it?
But - As this article clearly shows, they are preparing for it anyway.
[‘it’ being the citizenry actually getting angry enough to finally get a backbone.]
Go Ahead - Don’t Revolt. . .
Just Keep “Allowing” - Keep Denying The Realities - It’s Not Like
It’s Actually Getting Worse - Much Worse - Blatantly And Faster.
Mike - - The Old Hippie at. . .
The Old Hippie's Groovy Site
The Old Hippie's Groovy Blog
“Frivolous Names - Serious Content”
"First there was the successful consolidation of this nation’s media down to just five controlling corporations"
and 4 of the 5 seem to be propaganda arms ofthe Democratic Party....
"Then - The the legalization of “Free-Speech-Zones,” effectively eliminating free-speech in America"
"Free Speech zones" are a product of Political correctness on College Campuses..another far left concept
"Then - The elimination of habeas corpus"
Habeas remains in effect for All American Citizens...its not a "whole world" right...its a "free world" concept
"And during all of that - The successful transfer of this nation’s entire wealth, (and the control of that wealth,) into the hands of the-very-few"
I'll cede you that point however I'll also ask..."Where have you been the last 200 years?"....90% of the money is in the hands of 10% of the people...always has been...but you're still allowed to make some of your own...people build successful businesses in America every year...
You have good arguments on the first 2, especially the second. Free speech has effectively been removed from the college campus.
But habeas corpus is indeed a concept of our law and is not in manuy other nation's laws. It does apply to American citizens, but it also applies to anyone under the jurisdiction of our laws. You either have the rule of law or you do not.
"I'll cede you that point however I'll also ask..."Where have you been the last 200 years?"....90% of the money is in the hands of 10% of the people...always has been...but you're still allowed to make some of your own...people build successful businesses in America every year..."
This has been true at various times in our history, but every time we have reached that proportion it has been bad for our country. The playing field is not level is what he was trying to point out. Of course it never is, but its tilted 90% to about 5% of our population.
The current perversion of our Republic cannot stand. The perfect example of this perversion just came out of the Senate yesterday. Come on old Wolf....wooden arrows....American Samoa? Do you really defend this?
I don't like that CEO's get Multi-million dollar bonuses while their Companies Implode and the Shareholders lose their Shirts...Bonuses should be Perfomance Based
But I really would like to argue the the Constitutional points...
I am sure that the Administrations reasoning to holding them at the Guantanamo Naval Station was to keep them off sovereign U.S. soil ....the Supreme Court seems to narrowly disagree but I think Anthony Kennedy got it wrong...that aside, I firmly believe that the U.S. Constitution only legally applies to U.S. Citizens and others that are here legally or as circumstances dictate ....I can't imagine that they would apply to People trying to kill us...Rule of Law or not...I am not subject to the Laws or Legal Protections of France Britain or Germany as I sit here in Maryland...mainly because I'm not a Citizen of there..I know...territory under U.S. control...but I think theres a lot of grey area there
there just isn't a lot of Historical Precedent on how to proceed (in my opinion) and perhaps you could help me on this one as you were there...did we give the Vietcong the same level of Geneva as we did NVA regulars?...
With the type of Organization that Al Qaida is...I think one would have to look back to our War with the Barbary Pirates to find something Similar...Perhaps I should try to research what Edward Prebles instructions on Prisoner Handling were...but I bet Jefferson didn't tell him to observe Constitutional Protocol...(just a guess)
I'll await as you eviscerate me logically...looking forward to it
"did we give the Vietcong the same level of Geneva as we did NVA regulars?..."
Pretty much. It would dissapoint many folks here to learn that we didn't hate Charles Victor or the NVA...at times yes, but not really. There were times (I did not see any thing like it, but know it happened)that guys got out of hand when they saw what Charlie had done to friends in the villages or to one of our boys. But that happens on any side in any war as far as I know. I certainly saw those things, but my boys never got out of hand. We didn't take that many VC prisoners anyway. It was mostly NVA.
"I can't imagine that they would apply to People trying to kill us...Rule of Law or not...I am not subject to the Laws or Legal Protections of France Britain or Germany as I sit here in Maryland...mainly because I'm not a Citizen of there"
I would simply say that if you were there and not in Maryland, then you would be subject to their laws and not ours. If you are in a foreign country you are under their law, not ours.
Terrorists deserve contempt because of their methods involving and targeting civilians, but I wouldn't care to become like them and saw someones head off simply because I thought he was guilty. An American that supports them, lauds them, admires them, helps them.....would you suspend our laws in their case? Just my opinion.
Tell Matt to keep his hat on.
I would simply say that if you were there and not in Maryland, then you would be subject to their laws and not ours. If you are in a foreign country you are under their law, not ours.
I see your point...but would that not simply mean that taking them out of Afghanistan was the mistake?...if we had kept them there we could have kept Military Jurisdiction over them?
and I think this thread is about to go off the radar screen...we'll see if something similar gets posted as I'd like to discuss it more
I'll pass that to Matt ...thank you
I see your point...but would that not simply mean that taking them out of Afghanistan was the mistake?...if we had kept them there we could have kept Military Jurisdiction over them?
Absolutely.