Secret Witnesses in Guantánamo Trials

By TChris, Section Terror Detainees
Posted on Sat Dec 01, 2007 at 07:22:00 AM EST
Tags: detainee, Guantanamo, military tribunals (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

An accuser's motive to lie might be apparent to the accused, but what happens when the accused isn't allowed to learn the accuser's identity? Despite the administration's assurances that Guantánamo detainees will receive fair trials, Omar Ahmed Khadr will begin his trial with a significant handicap: he won't know who will be testifying against him.

Defense lawyers preparing for the war crimes trial of a 21-year-old Guantánamo detainee have been ordered by a military judge not to tell their client — or anyone else — the identity of witnesses against him, newly released documents show.

The right to confront witnesses is essential to a fair trial. How can a detainee's exercise of that right be meaningful when the detainee doesn't even know who the witness is?

Defense lawyers say the order would hamper their ability to build an adequate defense because they cannot ask their client or anyone else about prosecution witnesses, making it difficult to test the veracity of testimony.

In the administration's view, the vague fear of "terrorist retaliation" against their anonymous witnesses outweighs the accused's right to know the identity of his accuser. So much for the empty promise of fair trials for the Guantánamo detainees.

< Kerik Approved "Security" Detail For Rudy's Girlfriend's Family | Reply To A Defense Of WaPo's Spreading Lies About Obama >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Secret Witnesses in Guantánamo Trials | 33 comments (33 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

surely you weren't actually (5.00 / 1) (#1)
by cpinva on Sat Dec 01, 2007 at 02:20:31 AM EST

expecting fair trials for these people, were you? i think, at this point, even franz kafka would be amazed. i, on the other hand, having watched as this administration evolved from dickensian to fascist, am not in the least bit surprised.

exactly what the author's of the constitution feared, and proscribed, has come to pass. madison must be twirling in his grave.

can't have the identities known (5.00 / 1) (#2)
by Jen M on Sat Dec 01, 2007 at 07:37:23 AM EST

we might find out the defendants were never insurgents or terrorists.

Star Chamber (5.00 / 1) (#3)
by bernarda on Sat Dec 01, 2007 at 08:08:45 AM EST

There has been worry about Dumbya bringing back the Star Chamber, a jump to the past by 600 years. Not to worry, the his Star Chamber is already here.

: Took the words right out of my mouth. (none / 0) (#12)
by Edger on Sat Dec 01, 2007 at 03:49:54 PM EST

Last time I checked (1.00 / 1) (#4)
by jimakaPPJ on Sat Dec 01, 2007 at 08:11:16 AM EST

this guy was seen throwing a hand grenade killing a US soldier and injuring others while being wounded himself.

Save your pity for the friends and families for those he attacked.

Ah, the classic passive voice (5.00 / 1) (#8)
by Repack Rider on Sat Dec 01, 2007 at 11:11:40 AM EST

To make it look as though this was a fact, even though there is no evidence presented.

If he "was seen," WHO SAW HIM?


: I invite you to read (1.00 / 0) (#20)
by jimakaPPJ on Sun Dec 02, 2007 at 10:31:06 AM EST

Well, let me see (none / 0) (#19)
by jimakaPPJ on Sun Dec 02, 2007 at 09:28:17 AM CST
which is part of this thread.

What I understand is that (1.00 / 1) (#6)
by jimakaPPJ on Sat Dec 01, 2007 at 10:35:48 AM EST

our constitution does not apply to people attacking our soldiers halfway around the world.

In times past he would have been declared what he is, a Guerrilla, and executed on the spot.

That he is alive today is testimony to our good graces. He, and you, should be happy that he will get a tribunal rather than a rope.

Your inability to understand that speaks volumes and volumes about you.

So complacent. (5.00 / 1) (#7)
by syinco on Sat Dec 01, 2007 at 11:08:18 AM EST

Yes, it's an improvement that he receive some sort of tribunal, not a rope.

But that I or anyone should be happy or content with this does not follow. If we can do better yet, why not strive for it?

And my concern for him or for others to whom this treatment will eventually extend does not preclude my sympathies for those he's harmed.

Your inability to understand that speaks volumes and volumes about you.


Why should we be concerned? (1.00 / 0) (#13)
by jimakaPPJ on Sat Dec 01, 2007 at 08:29:58 PM EST

He is a guerrilla. He committed his crimes against the US outside the US. The constitution does not apply. Legally and morally he is being given a break he does no deserve.

What do you want? A lawyer assigned to each military company??? "Mr terrorist. You have the right to remain silent..."

Gesh.


Concern? (5.00 / 0) (#18)
by syinco on Sun Dec 02, 2007 at 08:51:29 AM EST

I think the more interesting question is why it would cause you much concern that someone would argue for application of a basic tenet of our judicial approach to the tribunal system.

Why does this cause you so much concern? Why do you appear to oppose something that seems nothing more or less than fair and reasonable?

If you don't, if you're not really concerned, then you're just trolling on this thread.

Just because it's not mandated by our constitution in these cases doesn't meant it's not a just or wise thing to do.

And suggesting that sympathy for the accused means none for the harmed, or taking it upon yourself to prejudge what he does or does not "deserve", or trying to disparage any criticism as merely an interest in attacking our country - those things don't fly here, so try another trick. Or another thread. ;)


Well, let me see (1.00 / 0) (#19)
by jimakaPPJ on Sun Dec 02, 2007 at 10:28:17 AM EST

First of all, the people in question do not have a right to our judicial system. That is reserved for US citizens and those committing crimes with the US and/or its territories. And, if you claim that they do, then at what point do we stop?? Shall we insist that the Chinese adopt our system? And if they do not, shall we then push the point by force of arms??

Secondly, this is nothing but a stalking horse for those who want these terrorists tried in a full up US CJ system. That would include, among other things, rigid guidelines for the chain of
evidence, etc.

For a better written assessment of the problem we have this from the WSJ.

But for Maj. Groharing, the case of U.S. v. Omar Khadr, slated for an American military commission at Guantánamo, has been a headache. Intelligence agencies refused to share their files with the prosecutor, fearing their methods or sources might be disclosed. Soldiers who witnessed the incident are scattered across the globe. Defense attorneys hurled a series of legal challenges that paralyzed proceedings. And the crime scene -- a remote village still contested by Taliban fighters -- was all but obliterated by American bombs, making it nearly impossible to conduct an independent investigation.

A battlefield is not a stable environment, and the chance of actually collecting and preserving "evidence" is almost nil.

"Just" and "wise" are words that mean different things to different people at different times. In fact, I argue that they were used by various KKK clans to justify their lynchings.

In other words, when you start to change the law based on your beliefs, there is no law, but "opinions." Welcome to the Wild Wild West and bring your army with you.

And suggesting that sympathy for the accused means none for the harmed, or

The lack of expressed sympathy for the soldiers in question speaks for itself. And I note that I didn't say they had no sympathy, but admonished them to "save" their pity for the soldiers instead of the killer in question.

As for "here," I have been "here" for over four years. Thankfully you do not own the blog. So we
both comment. Your problem is that you want an echo chamber. Welcome to the world of false expectations.

So, like it or not we must rely on doing the best we can with what we have. As I noted almost a year ago:

The problem is that the focus has been on the process, rather than getting to the truth, which based on what I have read, is straight forward and undeniable. The young man threw a hand grenade that killed one and injured others. He was undoubtedly engaged in combat. Since he does not meet the requirements of the GC and other protocols, he is falls squarely into the guerilla fighter category.

And we have, as you well know, released people. I think that speaks strongly for our humane nature and acts. Even though quite a few returned to attacking us.


Nice strawmen. (5.00 / 0) (#24)
by syinco on Sun Dec 02, 2007 at 05:18:32 PM EST

I never claimed a right to our judicial system. And besides, citing the impracticalities of doing so is quite different from the administration's objection to the rule in question; their objection is what I found objectionable here.

Sympathies - conversation here would become really tedious if we all had to express our sympathies each time to ensure they were known to all before we could say anything else. I have no reason to doubt that anyone here wouldn't feel sympathy. But if you need to project differently ...

Yes, I know you've been here a while - you certainly make yourself known. And FWIW, I generally appreciate your presence and input, because I think it's good to have positions challenged; it strengthens the good and discards the bad. That is, when there's actual substance to the challenge ...

As for truth vs. process, this is not the only case to which the rule in question will apply. In others, the truth might not be so apparently cut and dry.

Yes, reasonable people can disagree about what is just or wise or good or right or what have you. My point there was simply that just because something isn't granted in the constitution doesn't mean it can't or shouldn't be considered. Provided a common basis, reasonable people can debate what should or should not be done. So derives our law. And I still have heard no good reason that we should not allow persons accused to know their accusers' identities.


Uhhhh (1.00 / 0) (#25)
by jimakaPPJ on Sun Dec 02, 2007 at 06:19:07 PM EST

I never claimed a right to our judicial system.

Oh. Really. Then what is this??

And then to the chase...

My point there was simply that just because something isn't granted in the constitution doesn't mean it can't or shouldn't be considered.

I agree. (Shocked??) We have a process to amend the Constitution. Use it.

In that light, I have, right here in River City, tried to start, several times, a debate about how we can change in such a manner that would protect both the rights of US Citizens accused, and US citizens as the protected. No one seems to want to talk about it. The worst response I got, to summarize, was:

Don't fix what isn't broken?

Not broken?? I swear some people live in a cave..


"this" (5.00 / 0) (#28)
by syinco on Sun Dec 02, 2007 at 07:20:49 PM EST

"this" is generally a desire to always be 'self'-critical, to never stop asking 'how can we do this better?' (I would think the business side of you would appreciate that sentiment); and specifically, in context, it's that the rule in question appears ill-founded and that I think we can and should do better and thus be rid of it. (Yes, generally there are practical limits - sometimes you need to just get on with it - but I don't think we're there yet ...)

You keep wanting to make it more than that, but it wasn't. But are there other changes I would make? Yes. Would I apply the entire criminal code and set of procedures to all suspects caught on the battlefield or periphery? No.

"Don't fix what isn't broken." - that's indeed the kind of complacency I abhor ...


PPJ Supports Al Queda System of Justice (5.00 / 0) (#29)
by john horse on Sun Dec 02, 2007 at 11:38:26 PM EST

syinco,

According to the prosecutor in this case "The difference between us and al Qaeda is that when we had him on the battlefield, we didn't summarily execute him,"

According to PPJ this person "should have (been) executed him on the spot."

I think PPJ's position is not hard to understand. PPJ supports al Queda's system of justice.


: Please,..... John Horse (1.00 / 0) (#30)
by jimakaPPJ on Mon Dec 03, 2007 at 08:58:36 AM EST

Fire away, but be accurate. What I wrote was:

In times past he would have been declared what he is, a Guerrilla, and executed on the spot.
That he is alive today is testimony to our good graces. He, and you, should be happy that he will get a tribunal rather than a rope.
Typical distortion and twisting of the facts.

Where were you when I needed you??? (1.00 / 0) (#31)
by jimakaPPJ on Mon Dec 03, 2007 at 09:03:21 AM EST

"Don't fix what isn't broken." - that's indeed the kind of complacency I abhor

But before we light the camp fire, please note that I said we have a method of amending the Constitution. Changing such things as this outside of it insures problems down the road.


Action (none / 0) (#35)
by syinco on Mon Dec 03, 2007 at 08:13:32 PM EST

I appreciate your latter comments in the spirit of more action, less words. Agreed.

But while an amendment may provide the greatest assurance that an intended change remains as intended, it also seems the hardest to achieve, and thus not always the best path. So I am also in favor of other means to effect change here, about some of which I expect we would fervently disagree. (Shocked?? I didn't think so ... :)


So we have made a full circle (none / 0) (#37)
by jimakaPPJ on Tue Dec 04, 2007 at 09:23:03 AM EST

and returned to you wanting to take extra-constitutional activities to achieve your desired end.

Congratulations. And as Antony is reputed to have said when asked why he was in Egypt..

"I have come to bring the law. And I have 10 Legions to make it legal."


Huh? (none / 0) (#39)
by syinco on Tue Dec 04, 2007 at 10:03:36 AM EST

So anytime I object to a rule or law or practice, or the basis thereof, without specifically advocating and pursuing a full-blown constitutional amendment to effect change, I am guilty of wishing to rule by fiat?

That is inane. So much for good-faith discussion.


Tender feelings?? (none / 0) (#40)
by jimakaPPJ on Tue Dec 04, 2007 at 05:03:22 PM EST

My point is, was and will be, that is where such positions can lead.

The road to Hell, as they say, is paved with good intentions.

Success is getting what you want. Happiness is wanting what you get.

The only question is, are you the Roman or the Egyptian... and do you understand that your identification may change???


: No, (none / 0) (#41)
by syinco on Tue Dec 04, 2007 at 07:51:26 PM EST

just little patience for twisted words.
If I take you at your word (I'm still evaluating whether that's a wise thing to do), you seem to be arguing that because we may each have different opinions, judgments, or valuations, then any desire or advocacy for change, or defense of any position, is arbitrary and something to be disparaged.
That seems senseless and beyond cavil. I don't think that you really think that, so I'll assume that at least one of us has been misconstruing the other to some degree.
Do I think that my opinion is better than yours just because it is mine? No. Indeed, I'm open to considering alternative opinions and reevaluating my own, but I prefer to clear away the clutter of specious arguments in doing so.
Anyway, to not keep going astray, when I see something justified out of 'vague fear', that reeks to me of rationalization. That is what I find highly questionable here.

The Right to Confront Witnesses (5.00 / 1) (#10)
by john horse on Sat Dec 01, 2007 at 01:37:50 PM EST

PPJ,
The right to confront the witnesses against you is all about justice. The problem with kangaroo courts is that you can never be sure if a person found guilty or innocent are truly guilty or innocent. Our judicial system may have its flaws but I can't think of a better one for finding out the truth - whether someone is actually guilty or innocent, can you? You say that they are guilty but shouldn't the government have to prove it? How can someone prove their innocence if they can't confront the witnesses against them?

What I suspect is that the real reason that the Bush administration does not give the detainees at Guantanamo due process is because they know that their evidence against many of these detainees is weak. Thats why they need to make up the rules as they go along. If they had solid cases against them they would have tried them in court.


: Go grief. (1.00 / 0) (#14)
by jimakaPPJ on Sat Dec 01, 2007 at 08:32:28 PM EST

Our judicial system has nothing to do with terrorist guerrillas tried by tribunal.
Tell me. How hard is it for you to understand that?? It can't be as difficult as you let on, so I assume you are just looking for some way of saying, "America Bad."

in years past, (5.00 / 1) (#11)
by cpinva on Sat Dec 01, 2007 at 02:22:01 PM EST

he would have been a prisoner of war, and fallen under the purview of the geneva conventions. according to our president, we are at WAR with terrorists.

can't have it both ways buddy boy.


: He meets no measure (1.00 / 0) (#15)
by jimakaPPJ on Sat Dec 01, 2007 at 08:33:21 PM EST

of being a POW.
So knock of the BS claims and try another trick.

Glad to see you agree (1.00 / 0) (#16)
by jimakaPPJ on Sat Dec 01, 2007 at 08:36:22 PM EST

then having any kind of proceeding is a sham in and of itself.

I agree. Hang him.

Speaking of Depends, quit peeing on yourself every time someone suggests passing out justice via tribunal.

Now, get your dentures off my ankle and see if you can actually stand erect without worrying about people who try and kill our military.

If you can't stand the heat get (1.00 / 0) (#21)
by jimakaPPJ on Sun Dec 02, 2007 at 10:38:52 AM EST

out of the kitchen.

You wrote:

You have no respect for tradition and the rights that Englishmen and later on, Americans, fought and died for, because you need a fresh Depends

I replied:

To which you now whine.....

as with your insults

I suggest if you tender sensibilities can't take a come back, then you don't start the exchange.

tehehe


You can run but you can't hide. (none / 0) (#26)
by jimakaPPJ on Sun Dec 02, 2007 at 06:24:40 PM EST

You wrote.

Whereas, I made my comment about Depends after you took the first shot:

My comment was sharp and to the point. It noted a political position. It was not personal and did not refer to any of your bodily functions.

You did that. Clearly.

And don't stop. It speaks volumes about you.

hehe


Whine, whine, whine... (1.00 / 0) (#32)
by jimakaPPJ on Mon Dec 03, 2007 at 09:20:10 AM EST

I love it. I really do...

Look. You are the one whining away, supposedly insulted because I referred to your "inability."

If referring to someone's inability to understand something is a personal insult.. well... now I know why we have thousands of people who have self esteem but no abilities....

hehehehe

BTW - "The sun don't shine on the same dog's but every day" is what is called a "saying...." If you try that newfangled Google thing you will see 10 of about 1,190,000 hits.

Including this link to Porter Wagoner's classic....

Get back loneliness and let me by I'm looking for a new love you know why
My love she left me gone far away but the sun don't shine on the same dog every day
And I'm due a little sunshine...
No the sun don't shine on the same dog every day
The dog of the sun one will move every time

And here I was thinking you were a Renaissance Man.

;-)


hehe (1.00 / 0) (#34)
by jimakaPPJ on Mon Dec 03, 2007 at 06:25:21 PM EST

Whine some more, DA.

It defines you.


: Well, it does define you. (1.00 / 0) (#38)
by jimakaPPJ on Tue Dec 04, 2007 at 09:24:26 AM EST

Now. Get your dentures off my ankle. I have a busy day ahead...