Posted on 06/29/2004 11:57:27 AM PDT by Dog Gone
GUANTANAMO BAY NAVAL BASE, Cuba -- The Pentagon announced today that it has formed a five-member military tribunal to try three terrorism suspects held at this U.S. naval base.
The Pentagon's announcement came a day after the Supreme Court issued a ruling that prisoners held at Guantanamo Bay should have access to U.S. civilian courts to appeal their detention -- a decision considered a major blow for President Bush's stance that the United States can jail suspects without judicial review.
The trials -- of an Australian, a Sudanese and a Yemeni -- would be the first of any of the prisoners swept up in the U.S. war on terror and held at Guantanamo. These would be the first military tribunals convened by the United States since World War II.
"This is an important first step," Air Force Maj. John Smith, a lawyer who helped draft commission rules, said in a telephone interview from the Pentagon. "We'd like to have a case tried by the end of the year."
He said the trials would be held at the U.S. Navy base at Guantanamo, where detainees have been held since January 2002 and now number nearly 600 from 42 countries.
A Pentagon statement said the first to be tried will be David Hicks of Australia, Ali Hamza Ahmed Sulayman al-Bahlul of Yemen and Ibrahim Ahmed Mahmoud al-Qosi of Sudan. It was unclear which would go first.
The three have been charged with conspiracy to commit war crimes and other offenses. They could face up to life in prison if convicted, the Pentagon has said previously, ruling out death sentences for the three.
Al-Qosi is alleged to have been an al-Qaida accountant and bin Laden bodyguard, while al-Bahlul, of Yemen, is accused of being a propagandist for bin Laden who produced videos glorifying the killing of Americans, according to an official list of charges released by the Pentagon in February.
The men are alleged to have trained at al-Qaida camps in Afghanistan, but the Pentagon's list of charges makes no mention of either man carrying out or planning any terrorist attack.
Hicks, 28, a convert to Islam, is accused of training at al-Qaida camps and taking up arms against U.S.-led forces.
Charges include war crimes conspiracy, attempted murder and aiding the enemy. The attempted murder charge relates to claims he was an "illegal combatant."
The presiding officer was identified as Retired Army Col. Peter E. Brownback III, who is being recalled to active duty. Brownback has 22 years of experience as a judge advocate and nearly 10 years of experience as a military judge, the statement said.
It said the remaining panel members as two U.S. Marine Corps colonels, an Air Force colonel and an Air Force lieutenant colonel, but did not identify them by name.
"The presiding officer will be contacting attorneys in the cases in the near future to set an initial trial schedule," the Pentagon said in its statement.
Defense lawyers have criticized the process as stacked against them, but the military has said tribunals would offer full and fair trials.
Smith said Monday's Supreme Court ruling made no difference to plans for the tribunals, which the military calls commissions.
"The Supreme Court right now doesn't directly affect military commissions at all," he said. "Everyone would like to move this cases forward as quickly as possible."
Well, essentially the Supreme Court permitted or actually encouraged this, so I fail to see how anybody could complain. (Although I expect the whining to begin any minute now.)
Bump.
Too bad Court TV can't carry these cases. Or can they?
I've never seen a military trial televised, unless the Nuremberg war crime trials count. I would be highly doubtful that we'd permit the press to attend at all, much less with television cameras.
Good point. Nuremberg was a biggy,, I'm sure they will be recorded but not distributed.. and if distributed, very selectively.
PC America is so image conscious, it might help us to understand these "detainees" better.. some very interesting individuals indeed.
I'd like to see the trials, of course, but there's just no way that we're going to allow al-Jazeera into that courtroom.
the use of a military tribunal can be challenged as a result of yesterday's decision. let's see where this goes, its going to be challenged for sure by the ACLU.
Darn shame none will have an appointment with a rope, but at least the Eurowhining will cease..one can hope.
the last statement in the article, about yesterday's SCOTUS ruling making no difference - is just pie in the sky. there are 600 habeas cases coming like a locomotive to federal court.
Anything can be challenged, but I didn't read anything in yesterday's opinions that led me to believe that military tribunals are impermissible, or that the court would ever rule that way.
indeed, not impermissible. but the opening for challenges is there - and you can bet the ACLU plans to drive a truck through that opening. we all know the composition of the federal bench.
all I am saying is that somewhere, someplace - the liberals are going to find a judge who will rule these military tribunals violate the detainees rights.
Damn shame.
I can't see were a military tribunal is a civil court, sooooo is the article wrong or is the Pentagon defying the Sups? (Not likely.)
Alright then, lets have a fair anf honest trial. Then a right nice hanging.
So, now three of them are getting charges and a military trial. It's both accurate and not inconsistent.
It's about damn time... almost three years after 9/11, it's time to start executing these thugs.
It probably will be challenged, but it was pretty much suggested in the opinion of one of the justices (don't remember which one, sorry).
Yes, that would work too...
Actually, I do wonder what sort of punishment these people will get. Probably not death, I'm pretty sure of that. A military prison here? Or just being deported back to whatever hellhole they came from? I hope it's not the latter, since as we have discovered in Iraq, they just go right back to business as usual.
A military tribunal as a federal court.... OK. Makes moe sense than "civilian court."
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.