Well, my son, let those who are more experienced explain the facts of life in the military to you. You recall,I pointed out that it was the Secretary of the Navy who issued an order turning the Guantanamo DTA proceedings into a kangaroo Court.
Well, it is the same pork-seeking suit of a Secratary of the Navy who is front and center in the Haditha motion to dismiss for command influence. You can read all the facts in Col. Chessani's Motion to Dismiss. The same Secretary of the Navy is so busy trying to get pork for Northrop, his former employer (bio) out of Murtha's committee that he would dishonor these marines (follow the dots: Murtha - pork - former Northrop official Secretary of the Navy - Unlawful Command Influence in Haditha).
According to Kennedy's Guantanamo opinion, p 37-38, it was this same Secretary of the Navy whose implementing regulations messed up the DTA process so badly that it failed to meet minimum legal standards.
the procedural protections afforded to the detainees in the CSRT hearings are far more limited, and, we conclude, fall well short of the procedures and adversarial mechanisms that would eliminate the need for habeas corpus review. Although the detainee is assigned a “Personal Representative” to assist him during CSRT proceedings, the Secretary of the Navy’s memorandum makes clear that person is not the detainee’s lawyer or even his “advocate.” See App. to Pet. for Cert. in No. 06– 1196, at 155, 172. The Government’s evidence is accorded a presumption of validity. Id., at 159. The detainee is allowed to present “reasonably available” evidence, id., at 155, but his ability to rebut the Government’s evidence against him is limited by the circumstances of his confinement and his lack of counsel at this stage.
I hope it is finally clear that it is this spinless pork-seeking suit of a Secretary of the Navy who screwed up Haditha and who screwed up Guantanamo, and not just my paranoia that is drawing the line between the two.
You have two opposing forces at Guantanamo
You have the US Government that wants to try the detainees in military commissions and would have done so long ago back in 2002-2003. Except that they have been bogged down in litigation by the leftist lawyers. And this litigation has nothing to do with habeas corpus. This litigation claimed these detainees must be tried in US courts, not military tribunals (commissions). We have very valid reasons for wanting these trials done in military courts. For the same reason that our courts find spy cases so difficult because the US Government is forced to make public top secret information to get a conviction.
Force number two is the leftist lawyers. It is their actions that have delayed military trials....Then they turn around and cry habeas corpus. They created the habeas corpus problems!! Then bring on litigation about unlawful detention (habeas corpus)
the procedural protections afforded to the detainees in the CSRT hearings are far more limited, and, we conclude, fall well short of the procedures and adversarial mechanisms that would eliminate the need for habeas corpus review. Although the detainee is assigned a “Personal Representative” to assist him during CSRT proceedings, the Secretary of the Navy’s memorandum makes clear that person is not the detainee’s lawyer or even his “advocate.” See App. to Pet. for Cert. in No. 06– 1196, at 155, 172. The Government’s evidence is accorded a presumption of validity. Id., at 159. The detainee is allowed to present “reasonably available” evidence, id., at 155, but his ability to rebut the Government’s evidence against him is limited by the circumstances of his confinement and his lack of counsel at this stage.
Prisoners of war are detained by definition. They await military tribunals that your communist/leftist lawyers blocked at every turn. Because they want these proceedings done in Federal court in the USA with maximum media circus effect.
There are no federal courts in Guantanamo or any other of our military bases
The Pentagon announced changes last week to the military tribunals that it has been trying to set up at the Guantanamo Bay naval base -- for years now -- to try terrorist suspects on war crimes charges. The tribunals, known as commissions, so far have been a total failure. Not a single detainee has been actually been put on trial. The system has been mired in litigation. There are serious problems of fairness and appropriate process for defendants who could face long prison terms or even the death penalty. The administration's changes improve the system in subtle but important ways, moving it closer to the system of courts-martial by which the military tries its own soldiers. But they don't entirely fix the problems.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/06/AR2005090601705.html