Timing the Guantanamo Trials

By TChris, Section Terror Trials
Posted on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 08:32:09 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

The Bush administration's extraordinarily unsuccessful attempt to engineer a series of show trials at Guantanamo is about to accelerate.

The Pentagon has declared the Guantanamo war crimes trials a national priority and will more than double the number of military lawyers assigned to them ... . [A]bout 108 uniformed military lawyers [will] be added to the prosecution and defense teams in the next three months.

You think this has nothing to do with the upcoming election? Then why, after warehousing "enemy combatants" (or whatever the administration is calling them today) for the last six years without a single trial, have trials (perhaps including death penalty trials) become a sudden priority?

Pressed for details on the timing, [Air Force Brig. Gen. Thomas] Hartmann said, "I don't know that it always wasn't the No. 1 priority but I know that it was formally declared the No. 1 priority in the last two or three weeks" by Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon England.

Is the administration orchestrating an election year reminder of 9/11 in a sudden rush to judgment at Guantanamo? (more ...)

Preparations for the trial have already featured accusations of political manipulation, notably set forth by Air Force Col. Morris Davis, Guantanamo's former chief prosecutor. He has said under oath that the top legal advisor to Guantanamo's military commissions, Air Force Brig. Gen. Thomas Hartmann, interfered in his planning of trials at the base by demanding that he drum up "sexy", high-profile cases "with blood on them" to attract public support for convictions. That charge led a military judge several weeks ago to exclude Hartmann from further involvement in a prominent case. Davis has also accused the Pentagon's second-ranking civilian of telling him to quickly charge "high value" prisoners — like Mohammed — "because there could be strategic value before the (November) election." Both Hartmann and the Pentagon civilian, Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon England, have disputed those allegations, though not under oath. ...
Lawyers for the accused also suspect a political motivation in the timing of the case, since both presidential candidates, John McCain and Barack Obama, have said they would like to close down Guantanamo. Given that possibility, and an expected Supreme Court ruling later this month on the rights of prisoners at Guantanamo, it is almost certainly in the legal interests of the accused to see trial proceedings delayed — at least until a new administration in Washington potentially takes a different legal approach to dealing with terror suspects.

Quick trials and death sentences might please the Bush administration, but they might be even more satisfying to some of the defendants who relish the idea of martyrdom. Does it make sense to give them what they want?

< No Shameless Hacks Here | Sunday Late Night Open Thread >

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.

Timing the Guantanamo Trials | 45 comments (45 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

no, i'm certain (9/11) that it (5.00 / 1) (#37)
by cpinva on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 11:42:58 PM EST

has nothing to do with 9/11. no doubt (9/11), it is merely a (9/11) coincidence of (9/11) timing, that it would come (9/11) so close to the (9/11) elections in (9/11) november.

: Rudy? Dat you? (5.00 / 1) (#40)
by nycstray on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 11:55:59 PM EST

: Good One (none / 0) (#39)
by squeaky on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 11:44:16 PM EST

Yes. (none / 0) (#1)
by oculus on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 08:42:07 PM EST

This is, of course, evil (none / 0) (#2)
by s5 on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 08:45:40 PM EST

However, I'm not sure how this does the administration and the Republican party any favors. Do they really want a public reminder of everything they've done wrong for the last 7 years in the name of the war on terror? This just shows how deeply they're misreading the public.

The inmates are shark chum. (none / 0) (#41)
by Salo on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 12:01:21 AM EST

I always assumed there would be a massive parade of swinging and fried prisoners before Nov 2008. I also thought the would Habeus Corpus Osama or Zawahiri.

You still have to witness them rehabilitate the war in Iraq. Oh and they will rehabilitate it.And half the media will rehab that war too.

Obama better know his casualty rates and security terminology, and be able to account for all sorts surprizes. If he's got a loose grasp on day to day strategy and tactics he'll be burned very badly in debate.

The Courts Marshal will simply hang everyone that can be connected to terrorism and they will dare civilian lawyers and Dem politicians to interceed.

Half our party will simply clam up or assist in the calls for blood. The other half will be rail on the process and provided loopy talking points for GOP pundits who will point out how weak the Dems are.

It's going to be a set piece horror sow.


: horror show. (none / 0) (#42)
by Salo on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 12:02:34 AM EST

As for martyrdom (none / 0) (#3)
by s5 on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 08:49:11 PM EST

This case shows that death isn't always the ultimate punishment. I agree with the implied answer to your rhetorical question. Death would serve as the climax of the right wing revenge fantasy, but it would do nothing to punish them or deter future acts of terrorism.

Haha (none / 0) (#4)
by Alec82 on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 09:01:52 PM EST

These show trials are almost certainly a political manuver. Remember November 5, 2006? How Bush's puppet government convicted Saddam Hussein 48 hours before the midterm elections?

They're as transparent as they are incompetent.

This is totally tin-foil hat territory, but (none / 0) (#5)
by Anne on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 09:02:53 PM EST

I wonder if this isn't going to be a 2-fer: some drummed-up terrorism-related excuse to attack Iran coupled with Gitmo show trials to remind us how strong the GOP is in the "War on Terror."

What a great platform for John McCain, and what a great time to test the mettle of the Democratic nominee at the same time.

I'm looking for a total GOP box into which Barack Obama can be stuffed just in time for the election.

What are the positions... (none / 0) (#6)
by Jerrymcl89 on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 09:07:09 PM EST

... of the candidates on these trials? I know both McCain and Obama support closing Guantanamo, but I haven't heard much about the messier question of what to do about the detainees, most of whom clearly need to be tried somehow and somewhere.

Excuuuuuse me. A hi %-age are nothings, nada. (none / 0) (#8)
by wurman on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 09:57:02 PM EST

Many of the prisoners at Gitmo are mistakes, as per international media, some of them are idiot cab drivers caught up in a military sweep, local power brokers ratted out & turned in to the USA military for "reward" cash, and many low-level combatants who didn't have a uniform (and are therefore not "soldiers" as per Abu Gonzalez, et alii).

This is nonsense. The Bu$h thugs have a few, a very few, high "value" prisoners. The rest are a ragtag mob of low level guerillas.

A few need to be tried in Washington, D.C., with proper jurisprudence; the rest need to be sent home & watched closely by local police agencies.


Indeed... (5.00 / 1) (#11)
by Alec82 on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 10:15:47 PM EST

...you should listen to their attorneys discuss the cases. It is a wonder these poor men haven't turned into alcoholics at this point. These are military guys and to hear them talk you would think, given the administration's "view," that they were hard core communists.

This whole thing is a giant joke. They're show trials. Anyone who bothers to pay a slight bit of attention can see it.


The question is... (none / 0) (#12)
by Jerrymcl89 on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 10:23:27 PM EST

... how do you take what's in place now and produce a decent system for actually trying these people? Is it actually possible? And if not, what should be done with them?

Does anyone know what was done with Viet Cong prisoners? Were they accorded full POW rights? If so, I'd think that would be a reasonable precedent to do the same in these cases, at least where Iraqis are concerned.


: Solutions (none / 0) (#15)
by CharleyCarp on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 10:30:08 PM EST

Obviously, there are going to have to be a number of different solutions. The Uyghurs ought to be given political asylum in the US. The Bosnians can be sent home, as can most all of the Yemenis. Once the US has taken some asylees, other countries will take some, and make a serious dent in the 1/3 of prisoners already cleared for transfer/release. Some few can be tried in the Southern District of New York -- if they were involved in a crime there.
No one, ever, should be held without trial.

: In a way... (none / 0) (#16)
by Alec82 on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 10:32:10 PM EST

...a lot of it depends on how you view the 9/11 attacks. I see it as pretty much a criminal act...an astounding one, but just a criminal act.
Whatever the proper course, it is pretty apparent that the commissions were a step in the wrong direction.

: What should be done with them? (none / 0) (#38)
by magnetics on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 11:43:48 PM EST

Repatriate them, with formal apologies, and a respectable cash payment as compensation for their suffering and lost time.
That won't begin to make it up, but it's a step in the right direction.
The whole thing has been a put-up job from start to finish; and if there are any legitimate terrorists (likely a few, I grant) send them to the Hague to be tried under international law.
The main point-- America has fouled this nest thoroughly, and should attempt the most graceful exit possible.

Kudos. n/t (none / 0) (#20)
by wurman on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 10:41:36 PM EST

My general impression... (none / 0) (#10)
by Jerrymcl89 on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 10:14:20 PM EST

... and I certainly could be wrong, is that most of the 100% innocent have been released by now. I'm not trying to excuse the administration's excesses, but I think what is mostly left is prisoners who are guilty of something (including some percentage of very, very guilty people), but who are hard to actually put on trial because of poorly thought out actions taken in the past. Sorting out what to do with them is a very difficult question. I'm not really against some type of military justice - I think the formal military justice system has more integrity than it's given credit for - but I think the process in place has shown signs of not being independant enough. I'd like to know what the candidates think about the issue, but I suspect it's nuanced enough that neither of them wants to talk about it.


Think Again (none / 0) (#13)
by CharleyCarp on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 10:25:08 PM EST

or better yet, look a little closer. Releases don't have anything to do with whether someone is "innocent" -- can you guess why over 90% of Saudis have been returned, and fewer than 15% of the Yemenis? It doesn't have anything to do with what the prisoners did or didn't do in Afghanistan, or in Cuba. Instead, it's about Iraq, Iran, oil, oil, and, this might be a surprise to some people, oil.

My theory on the trials isn't that they're about the elections in November -- it's unlikely that there will be enough there for any but the red meat crowd -- but instead for the legacy. It's pretty embarrassing that Ramzi Binalshibh has been in custody since September 2002, and they can't bring him the trial before Bush leaves. This is why they've shifted from pursuing Bin Laden's mechanic and the teenager with the hand grenade to the 9/11 conspirators.

I think they also want to get something done with that shiny no-longer-new MCA before a new administration comes in and junks it. If pre-trial proceedings on the 9/11 guys are far enough along, maybe (they're thinking) even Obama continues them. And if he doesn't, then it's Obama's fault if something goes wrong.


I'm open to being persuaded,,, (none / 0) (#18)
by Jerrymcl89 on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 10:35:00 PM EST

... that there are a fair amount of remaining innocent detainees. But I also think there are a fair amount of very guilty ones. So I want to know how people think they should best be handled. What I originally asked is what Obama and McCain favor about this, and I haven't seen an answer. I'd be open to anyone else's answer as well. I think the Bush administration's actions have left a choice between a very flawed legal system, and letting people who killed thousands of Americans and would like to do it again walk, and I'm not happy about that.


Huh? (5.00 / 1) (#21)
by CharleyCarp on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 10:42:49 PM EST

You think more than 10 people held in Guantanamo bear any responsibility for the 9/11 attacks? How ever did you come to this?


If three of them do... (none / 0) (#23)
by Jerrymcl89 on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 10:47:49 PM EST

... I think it's important to bring them to justice.

I'm not trying to make a neocon argument here, but I think part of the mess the Bush admin has made is that it's difficult to fairly try the extremely guilty (and anyone who's being fair about it, I think, ought to concede there are at least some of those). I'm trying to hear arguments about how that can be done, or how it's been done in the past. It's a very messy legal quagmire.


Quagmire? (none / 0) (#26)
by CharleyCarp on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 10:55:43 PM EST

It's not messy at all. Bring KSM, RBAS, and their core group -- ie the 3 guys indicted with them -- to NYC and try them in the Southern District. Nothing difficult about that.


So you are okay.... (none / 0) (#30)
by Jerrymcl89 on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 11:01:38 PM EST

... if KSM gets aquitted and walks? Because that does seem to be a risk of giving him full legal rights of a US citizen, and forever setting the precedent that all terrorists get the same. I'm not certain that's wrong, but I certainly have reservations. I don't think the Bush administration made up the idea that terrorism is a murky legal area.


: Full Legal Rights (none / 0) (#33)
by CharleyCarp on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 11:09:09 PM EST

of a human being, you mean. We don't distinguish, in the criminal justice system, based on citizenship. Judge Coughenour gave a great statement at the sentencing of the Millenium Bomber. You can find it on the internets, along with his 2007 NYT editorial on the subject.
It's not a murky area at all. You just have to get off the Dred Scott thinking that these people have no rights the white man is bound to respect.
And now, good night for real.

Only 3 of them . . . (none / 0) (#29)
by CharleyCarp on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 10:58:00 PM EST

Amd obviously, it's deeply immoral to hold 275 men prisoner because you think 3 of them are guilty. The people that the authorities haven't made a case against -- they've indicted, what, 15 people altogether in 6 years -- ought to go home. Now. With a check.


: As I see them... (none / 0) (#32)
by Jerrymcl89 on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 11:07:04 PM EST

... there are people who are innocent, but stuck because no one wants to take them. Those need to be worked out.
Then there are people who are guilty of something, but not extremely high risk. That's probably most of the people still and Guantanamo.
Then there are the seriously dangerous and very guilty.
Anything we decide to do there has to be able to deal with all of them.
I think that anyone the US is detaining is entitled to some sort of due process. I don't think everyone deserves the full rights of a US citizen. Where in between to draw the line is something I haven't fully decided.

On the Media discussed aspects of this today (none / 0) (#7)
by jerry on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 09:33:59 PM EST

On the Media: Stagecraft at Guantanamo

At the moment, there is not much at that link, but they promise it will be there Monday.

Not To Mention: Torture (none / 0) (#9)
by squeaky on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 10:12:13 PM EST

That this will backfire badly. Obama and Hillary must address it. Indefinite detention is unconstitutional, illegal, immoral and against international law.

Why Hillary? (none / 0) (#14)
by nycstray on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 10:27:59 PM EST

Shouldn't it be Obama and McCain? I think she should if she wants to, but "must"? It's Obama's party now.


Just Projecting (none / 0) (#17)
by squeaky on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 10:32:20 PM EST

I would prefer to have both of them working for me against BushCo.


Opportunity Coming (5.00 / 1) (#19)
by CharleyCarp on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 10:41:02 PM EST

I suppose any senator will be free to comment after the Supreme Court issues its decision in Boumediene later this month. I would expect both Clinton and Obama to stay away from the Commissions for now: it's unpredictable, and there's aren't any votes in it.

The DC Circuit is going to have to decide Parhat one of these days, and this might also give an opportunity to comment. This is the case brought by the Uyghurs, and raises the issue of just who this war is against and who gets to decide who the war is against: Congress or the President. At oral argument, the panel seemed to think the issue had already been decided against the government's position in Little v. Barreme.


Yes (none / 0) (#22)
by squeaky on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 10:47:44 PM EST

I would expect both Clinton and Obama to stay away from the Commissions for now: it's unpredictable, and there's aren't any votes in it.

I guess you are right. Many Americans are warmongers at heart and seek revenge. There has not been a peep against the WOT by either Dem candidate.


There's only one Dem Candidate now. (none / 0) (#24)
by nycstray on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 10:52:40 PM EST

: I Know (none / 0) (#35)
by squeaky on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 11:14:31 PM EST

But I am visualizing world peace.

Endorsement (none / 0) (#25)
by CharleyCarp on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 10:53:06 PM EST

A group of lawyers representing Gitmo prisoners did endorse Obama -- you can google it up -- and the endorsement was prominently featured on the campaign website when it came out. Small stuff, to be sure.

The thing about the Commissions, though, is that they'll not have anything really newsworthy, and nothing where a candidate can really take a stand, until there start to be rulings on disputed issues. The firing of the judge hearing the Khadr case made the NYT, but even there, a candidate isn't going to have much to say, because it's far from clear that the replacement judge won't end up with the same rulings on pre-trial discovery.

It's really just too deep in the weeds.


I Dunno (5.00 / 1) (#34)
by squeaky on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 11:12:55 PM EST

...and nothing where a candidate can really take a stand, until there start to be rulings on disputed issues.

I would like both of them to say that they would restore America's image in the world, by at the very least honoring the Geneva Conventions and honoring Due Process. As an added plus I would love for them to say that they are going to make sure that the fourth amendment is reinstated.


Motions on the interrogation techniques? (none / 0) (#27)
by Alec82 on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 10:56:49 PM EST

I thought I heard some talk about that a couple of months ago. I admit I haven't been following very closely. It is too depressing and it is out of my hands. Plus, I no longer run a blog so I don't keep track as closely.


: At The Comment Limit, I think (none / 0) (#31)
by CharleyCarp on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 11:03:48 PM EST

so I'll just go one more. The prisoners aren't being interrogated any longer, so the motions would be for suppression of particular bits of evidence. Still a pretty tough place for a candidate to go: the evidence, and much of the argument, is going to be classified, and even if it isn't, there's going to be context etc.
And if KSM gets his way, and is allowed to pursue his strategy of delegimization of the forum through firing counsel, it becomes truly impossible for a candidate to comment.
Night all.

Well, if she says anything before Obama (5.00 / 1) (#28)
by nycstray on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 10:57:04 PM EST

she'll be stepping on his toes and other outcries. As my Senator, I would like her to be able to stand up against the admin, but right now, she's sorta 'caught'. I don't see why you've singled her out when you have Kerry and all the other Dem Senators.


: Not To Worry (5.00 / 1) (#36)
by squeaky on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 11:15:39 PM EST

Now they are on the same team.

last time i checked, acts of (none / 0) (#43)
by cpinva on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 05:07:02 AM EST

terrorism (blowing buildings up) are criminal acts, regardless of the motivation. transfer them to high security facilities in the US and try them in federal courts.

for those captured on a battlefield, absent a uniform or any other clearly identifiable markings of an organized army, the geneva conventions provide an explicit process for dealing with them. use it.

captured viet cong were turned over to the s. vietnamese army. i have no idea what they did with them. i suspect it wasn't pleasant.

"Trials" are entirely political, and (none / 0) (#44)
by HenryFTP on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 05:11:56 AM EST

can be attacked as making all of us less safe.

The argument that it's taken 5-6 years to assemble the requisite evidence against these defendants is ludicrous, and there have certainly been zero concerns about giving these defendants "speedy trials" heretofore.
The unseemly rush to put these defendants on trial will subject any conviction to a higher likelihood of being overturned on appeal.
Even if the convictions are upheld, the conduct of these trials with suspect evidence and interference with the right to counsel will delegitimize the verdicts in the eyes of the world.
We will be creating martyrs out of criminals and fostering terrorism, all for some dubious short-term domestic political reasons.

I wouldn't recommend that the nominee makes these attacks, but I don't understand why these wouldn't be entirely legitimate Tier 2 attacks -- particularly as the time will come when all of us will be called to account for permitting this sort of rank injustice to be perpetrated in our name. There is apparently no depth to which the Republicans will not stoop to stain the honor of our Armed Forces and our country. It's shameful when our men and women in uniform have to sacrifice their careers to uphold the honor of the country, while our so-called leaders have been so often silent (or complicit).

Someone Shoud Point Out (none / 0) (#45)
by bob h on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 05:26:51 AM EST

that none of the accused are Iraqi, and that Iraq had nothing to do with supporting them, so what the hell are we doing in Iraq?