Posted on 01/19/2007 3:45:20 PM PST by blam
Terror suspects 'face execution over hearsay'
By Tim Hall and agencies
Last Updated: 8:51am GMT 19/01/2007
Terror suspects could be jailed for life and even executed on the basis of hearsay or coerced testimony under new rules put forward by the US.
The Pentagon has drawn up a draft manual ahead of trials at Guantanamo Bay, which are expected to begin soon.
The proposals will grant judges wide freedom in deciding what evidence to hear, including statements obtained under duress.
Human rights groups say the regulations would allow evidence that would not be tolerated in civilian or military courtrooms.
“No civilized nation permits convictions to rest on coerced evidence, and reliance on such evidence has never been acceptable in military or civilian courts in this country,” said Elisa Massimino, Washington director of Human Rights First.
Democrats controlling Congress vowed to hold urgent hearings into the proposals.
Dan Dell’Orto, deputy to the US Defence Department’s top counsel, defended the new rules, saying the they will “afford all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized people.”
He said the fact hearsay would be admissible for both prosecution and defence would “level the playing field.”
The draft comes after legislation last December cleared the way for the start of “enemy combatant” trials at Guantanamo.
Officials are planning trials for an initial 10 detainees, and believe they have enough evidence to eventually charge up to 80.
More than 400 people are being held at the military camp in Cuba, with around the same number so far released since it opened five years ago.
As well as allowing judges to accept hearsay – a witness quoting someone else – the draft proposals could also forbid a detainee’s lawyer revealing classified evidence in defence until the government has a chance to review it.
Also, suspects would be allowed to view summaries of classified evidence, not the material itself.
The manual allows the death penalty for people convicted of spying or taking part in a “conspiracy or joint enterprise” that results in someone’s death.
The maximum penalty for aiding the enemy — such as providing ammunition or money — is lifetime imprisonment.
Just bringing the level of the rights of terrorists, up to the same level applicable to Christians and conservatives...
A concern. On the other hand, the default when most are captured is to just shoot them...given that these are primarily people captured in the act of making war.
we need to make sure we're not just rounding up people and shooting them, and that there are checks to ensure accusers are not abusing the situation...and on the other hand, we can't give war criminals MORE benefits than captured soldiers.
A concern. On the other hand, the default when most are captured is to just shoot them...given that these are primarily people captured in the act of making war.
So we either have to shoot the captured terrorists or the lawyers. Tough decision although the lawyers are more of a threat to the US.
If they are in Guantanamo, they were captured while actively trying to kill Americans, like that ding-dong from Marin County, or otherwise in the middle of a firefight zone, armed and obviously a participant.
Innocent? Almost impossible. the only real determination is probably whether each should be executed immediately or later.
On the other hand:
Most detainees are being held for the crime of having "associated" with the Taliban or al-Qaida—often in the most attenuated way, including having known or lived with people assumed to be Taliban, or worked for charities with some ties to al-Qaida. Some had "combat" experience that seems to have consisted solely of being hit by U.S. bombs. Most were not picked up by U.S. forces but handed over to our military by Afghan warlords in exchange for enormous bounties and political payback.
http://www.slate.com/id/2136422/
Hmmm. I'll keep looking to see the pro-Gitmo side.
Luckily, we have progressed since then, and in the future, I predict, soldiers will need a lawyer's ok before firing any shots at all. If we do happen to capture an enemy soldier, we better make sure he's the most comfortable bastard alive, and he better not get punished.
Well, before it even gets to this stage they ARE allowed to challenge in the DC district court whether or not they were combatants. ...and "associates", while sounding innocuous, has in the main case so far meant Bin Laden's personal driver.
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.