Yesterday, I was disgusted by news that the “bin Laden” driver’s shadow court case was coming to a close. The case is based on coerced or secret evidence that wouldn’t see the light of day on the mainland. Apparently, even though it is on sovereign soil the federal government’s own rules don’t apply to them outside of the 50 states. That is disgusting enough. Then I read that, regardless of whether he is acquitted or not, he will not be going free. We intend to keep a hold of him for the rest of his life.
Pentagon Press Secretary Geoff Morrell on Aug 5, 2008 (pasted from the DoD website)
Q A quick follow-up on Hamdan there, on what you were saying on the trial. To critics who say -- what do you all say to critics who say that even though he goes through the trial, depending what the jury says, if he's guilty or not guilty -- if he's not guilty, he still stays in prison. How do you respond to that being what's considered a fair trial?
MR. MORRELL: Well, he would be -- even if he were acquitted of the charges that are before him, he would still be considered an enemy combatant and therefore would continue to be subjected to -- subject to continued detention. Of course, that said, he would also have the opportunity to go before the administrative review board and they could determine whether he is a suitable candidate for release or transfer. But in the near term, at least, we would consider him an enemy combatant and still a danger and would likely still be detained for some period of time thereafter.
But he could, of course, then challenge his enemy combatant status through the courts as well. And for more on that -- I think on the particulars of the legal process, I'd refer you to the Department of Justice.
As I read that, I thought. Aha! Now everyone will see these “tribunals” for what they really are, staged productions to appease the american people. Nope. Turns out noone actually cares.
So today I open my computer, and what should I see but some bullshit that bush intends to spew from Taiwan. He is going to speak about china’s awful detention policies. Does it detain them too long, George? Or does it detain the wrong ones? Perhaps if they concentrated on detaining only the “radical Muslims” you wouldn’t have to say anything at all.
Does no one else see the hypocrisy? Am I really much of a radical?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
Well, I have to admit, this is news to me. I certainly don't understand the "visual" of a trial if the outcome is essentially pointless. I'm grateful you pointed this out. It's definitely another very dark shadow over this administration. An honest question here: what happens to these detainees in the next administration? The same thing or does the Constitution magically apply or what?
I think there should be a distinction between improper detention and torture (both abhorred) and the criminal tribunals (not inherently wrong). Military courts are allowed to apply international law. I need to read more about the procedures of these proceedings to know whether they are in line with international law. So I can't say whether I agree with you or not that these are staged. I do agree with you, however, that our torture and detention policies have severely hindered our moral standing in the world. I read today that China said, "Stick it" to George W. after he referenced China's human rights violations. And I thought, why shouldn't China say that? And that sucks.
What is there not to know?
Here is the link to the dod transcript for that day.
http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/transcript.aspx?transcriptid=4270
(I don't know how to embed hyperlinks, yet)
A predetermined outcome to a "trial" seems a bit unlawful, no?
In response to LJ, both candidates want it to go away. Neither has said how.
Update: It turns out that the jury suggested a sentence of 5.5 yrs. This would allow him to be released around the end of the year. I was quite surprised to see this.
We will see what happens with all of the reviews, and I will try to keep you updated.
Very interesting. I tend to agree with DVD that military tribunals are not inherently bad and they may be following proper procedures at during the actual "trial". However, I think I agree with everyone that it is improper for a "trial" to have no bearing on the person's Freedom. "Congratulations you are an innocent man, however, we are now going to take you back to your tiny cell and waterboard you for false information until such time as an amorphous administrative review board determines whether you are a candidate for early release. Thank you and God bless America."
Also, someone should introduce the phrase "pot calling the kettle black" to the President. Although, who knows how that would turn out when he attempted to repeat it.
Lastly, if we are going to convict his driver, shouldn't we potentially look at charges against people who have armed bin laden, like for instance the USA? Just a thought.
I recently saw a documentary on PBS about soldiers requesting discharge because of the treatment of Iraqi POWs in American prison camps. It was disheartening. It reminded me of Schindler's List or Empire of the Sun.
I've decided that it is total anarchy to have a blog but then not post to it. Awesome! Way to stick with it.
You have even taken it to a whole new level by not even responding to comments.
You are a total AIB
Post a Comment