Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

JUSTICE FOR ENEMY: Military tribunal rules set for prisoners
Union Leader ^ | 5/03/03 | PAULINE JELINEK, AP

Posted on 05/03/2003 3:28:42 AM PDT by kattracks

WASHINGTON (AP) - The Pentagon issued final rules for trying terrorist suspects in military tribunals Friday, requiring that defendants who want civilian attorneys must hire Americans.

After releasing segments of the rules bit by bit over the last year and half, the Pentagon is now ready to begin the tribunals, except for selecting tribunal members and defendants and arranging travel and security at the trial site, a senior defense official said.

Briefing Pentagon reporters on condition of anonymity, officials said they have some suspects in mind who might be brought before these tribunals but no final decisions have been made.

The United States holds 660 men at its naval base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, who were captured during the war against Osama bin Laden's Al-Qaida terror network in Afghanistan and other nations. But the highest ranking al-Qaida prisoners are being held at secret locations elsewhere. Terrorists caught during the war in Iraq also could go before the tribunals.

Friday's final set of instructions laid out the responsibilities of prosecutors and defense counsel and qualifications for any civilian lawyers who serve as a defense attorneys.

Each defendant will be given a military lawyer, but defendants who want additional civilian representation must foot the bill themselves and must hire Americans.

American citizenship was required because the Pentagon is requiring that any civilian attorneys have, or apply for, security clearance that will allow them to see some secret evidence, although not the mostly highly classified information. The military defense attorneys would be allowed to view all the evidence, no matter how high its classification.

President Bush in November 2001 - two months after the terrorist attacks on New York and Washington - ordered that tribunals, also called commissions, be established for trials of foreigners who are suspected terrorists.

Four months later, the Pentagon announced general rules for the tribunals. Those rules provided defendants some, though not all, of the same rights as defendants in civilian U.S. trials. Those charged would be presumed innocent, given attorneys and convicted only if evidence established guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, but they would have a different appeal process and might not be allowed to hear all the classified evidence against them.

Then in February, officials announced a draft list of some two dozen crimes with which defendants could be charged, including terrorism, rape, taking hostages, killing civilians and using poisons. On Friday, the Pentagon added two more crimes - torture and causing serious injury.

Officials didn't say where the trials would be held.



TOPICS: News/Current Events; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: militarytribunals

1 posted on 05/03/2003 3:28:42 AM PDT by kattracks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: kattracks
I hope they've also laid down strict laws regarding the courtroom interpreters and translators. This is one of the weak links in civilian terrorism trials, because it frequently involves using foreign-born Arabic or other translators who are sympathetic to the defendant and try to do everything to favor him in their translation. I imagine in military tribunals, more care will be taken to find trustworthy intepreters. I hope so, at least.
2 posted on 05/03/2003 3:33:57 AM PDT by livius (Let slip the cats of conjecture.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: livius
The military has some Arabic translators. They would have have been schooled at DLI (Defense Language Institute).

Assuming an eventual sentencing, where are these dirtbags going to be incarcerated? Even if it's a death sentence, they'll be held until the execution is carried out. I can't imagine they'll drag them to the States? Will they hold them on Cuba?

3 posted on 05/03/2003 3:52:09 AM PDT by Credo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

Comment #4 Removed by Moderator

To: Mickey Marx
Uh, where did you come from? New to these parts?
5 posted on 05/03/2003 5:42:26 AM PDT by x1stcav (HooAhh!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Mickey Marx
You think every lawyer must love his client in order to give a vigorous defense? Of course there are always Stanley Cohen and Lynne Stewart admirers to help the cause of the defendents,too. Psst They are not POWs. We certainly treat them better than our POWs were treated.
6 posted on 05/03/2003 6:29:54 AM PDT by MEG33
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Credo
Yes, I'd like to know some of the details, too.

I'm concerned about translation because I am a translator and rcently attended a conference of judicial interpreters and translators where an Egyptian-born court interpreter who had worked in the first WTC bombing trial gave such a biased presentation - biased in favor of the blind sheik who orchestrated the bombing - that I could scarely believe it. Not only was he biased, but the judge (Leonard Sand) had given him all sorts of special breaks.

For example, he was the only translator, could have ex parte conversations, and did not have to translate literally. When the sheik said "Victory to the armies of Allah," he decided to translate it as "Good morning." There are many other Arabic greetings, such as the standard shalom aleichem (peace be with you). But this interpreter - who went up and APOLOGIZED to the sheik for not "being of more help" - took a highly political greeting and made it neutral.

To put this in other terms, in Austria under Hitler, there were many people who continued to use the traditional greeting, Grüss Gott, even after the Nazis took over and imposed "Heil Hitler" on everyone. It was significant when someone said Grüss Gott and significant when someone said Heil Hitler.

And it is equally significant when an Arabic speaker says "Peace be with you" and when another Arabic speaker says "Victory to the armies of Allah."

I hope the tribunals are enforcing literal translation - that is, the interpreter translates every word, and it is up to the attorney of the defendant to explain or clarify what the defendant has said. And I hope we have native Americans with a high level of fluency who, if not able to do the primary translation, can at least monitor native speakers.

Normally, court interpreting is done by at least two interpreters, who trade off every twenty minutes. In some cases, they are supervised by a third interpreter for accuracy. We need all possible safeguards here.

7 posted on 05/03/2003 5:03:09 PM PDT by livius (Let slip the cats of conjecture.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson