Posted on 11/15/2005 3:22:43 PM PST by Valin
The United States suspended its controversial military trials for 'war on terror' detainees after a ruling by a federal judge. Following the judge's action on Monday, the Defense Department said it had postponed the first trial hearing of accused "Australian Taliban" David Hicks, which was scheduled to start Friday at the Guantanamo Bay naval base in Cuba. "The courts have intervened, as I understand it, and things are off for a period until the courts sort through things," US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said.
Bryan Whitman, a Pentagon spokesman, said the government has not decided whether to appeal the ruling by US District Judge Colleen Kollar Kotelly. "This is something that happened last night. The government will obviously review the rulings of the court and make its decision from there," he said.
Kotelly ruled that the Hicks trial be suspended ahead of an anticipated ruling by the US Supreme Court on the legality of the special military tribunals set up after the September 11, 2001 attacks. Whitman stressed that the ruling applied only to Hicks, but no dates have been set for any other trials to start. Kotelly said the suspension would remain in effect "pending the issuance of a final and ultimate decision by the Supreme Court in that case." The Supreme Court has said it would give a ruling in 2006 on the military trials, which have faced criticism at home and abroad.
Hicks, 30, was the first of nine detainees to face trial by the special military commissions, which have been condemned by civil legal groups and even many of the military lawyers defending the detainees. A convert to Islam who was captured in Afghanistan in late 2001, Hicks faces charges of conspiracy to commit war crimes, attempted murder by an unprivileged belligerent and aiding the enemy. He has denied the charges.
Despite the Supreme Court intervention, the Pentagon had wanted Hicks' trial to proceed, while officials said they were aware that a court could order a suspension. The Supreme Court said last week it would rule next year on the legality of the military commissions in response to a challenge by lawyers for another detainee, Saleh Ahmed Hamdan, a Yemeni. There have been a series of court challenges to the tribunals.
A federal appeals court in July reaffirmed President George W. Bush's authority to order trials of "war on terror" detainees by the commissions in Hamdan's case. Hicks' lawyers filed a petition in federal court last week seeking a stay of his trial pending the Supreme Court ruling. The Pentagon brought war crimes charges against five more detainees a week ago, bringing to nine the number who face trial by military commission, on the same day that the Supreme Court said it would rule on the legality of the process.
Nearly 500 other detainees are being held without charge at the military-run prison at the Guantanamo Bay Naval Base in Cuba. Most of the inmates were captured in Afghanistan and Pakistan after a US-led offensive toppled the Taliban government in Kabul in late 2001. The United States has declared the detainees illegal enemy combatants who are not protected by the Geneva Conventions.
He is a she.
Is that along with "the suspect shot himself 6 times in the back of the head. Apparently, he had a real 'death grip' on the pistol"?
And MANY of the detained have been innocents--but that's to be expected when we give out bounties to get suspects and tribesmen can make cash at the same time that they remove rivals by fingering them.
Judges are becoming too power drunk these days...
ping
(IMO) Sometimes a legalized lynching is just what's called for.
That is pure nonsense. I doubt if more than a handfull if any are innocent. We don't operate that way.
Turn them all loose in Washington DC. That way they can be close to their supporters and brother insurgents.
Still works. I'm sure the terrorist detainees will treat her with all the respect they afford women under TROP.
Okay...so call the Administration liars.
If the administration said that, then they are liars. If not then you are.
If they were in fact taken while under arms, they are not innocent, period. In the case at hand, involving the Australian Taliban, he was taken under arms, not even the defense argues that he wasn't.
To be clear we are talking about the terrorists in Guantanamo, not every single Iraqi held briefly and questioned then let go.
I wonder how she would like wearing a burka and eaiting on these guys hand and foot.
o my gosh.
I meant "waiting on these guys.."
I think I'll sign off for the night.
Well, the Army did...see the Ryder report.
...implying that if they weren't under arms, they were innocent?
The tribunals aren't as concerned with civil liberties as the Nazi trials.
"But my point was that that the trials are really going to be blocked - it's just that they don't reflect well on the U.S. done this way. The trials need to be more like the Nuremburg trials and less like a secret tribunal."
Uh, the Nuremburg trials were tribunals.
Here's a link:
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/imt/imt.htm
Perhaps the one difference is that the war was over and there was no need to keep much, if any, information secret. Not exactly the same situation today, don't you aggee?
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.