Quantcast
Connect with us

Wheels of justice barely turn at Guantanamo prison

Published

on

War crimes trials at Guantanamo Bay for suspects accused of attacks against the United States have ground to a near halt a decade after the military courts’ creation, with lawyers warning that some detainees could spend many more years waiting to be tried.

Despite President Barack Obama’s early vows to close the facility in eastern Cuba amid charges that suspects had been tortured, the United States continues to spend some $91 million a year on military trials at the base, which has 61 remaining inmates.

ADVERTISEMENT

“The military commissions in their current state are a farce,” Marine Brigadier General John Baker, the chief defense counsel, said last month at a Washington legal conference, of the tribunals that prosecute detainees. “The Guantanamo Bay military commissions have been characterized by delay, government misconduct and incompetence, and more delay.”

James Connell, a defense lawyer for Kuwaiti Ammar al Baluchi, one of five suspects on trial for their alleged roles in the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, said that trial was not likely until maybe 2020, almost two decades after airline hijackers killed nearly 3,000 people.

Because the court and much of the evidence lies outside the United States, the trial “is 100 times more complex than even a complex ordinary death penalty case,” said Connell.

In contrast with Guantanamo, federal prosecutors operating in U.S. courts have secured more than 340 terrorism convictions over the last decade, a Justice Department spokesman said. Tanzanian Ahmed Khalfan Ghailani was transferred from Guantanamo to New York in 2009, and 17 months later a civilian jury convicted him for his role in al Qaeda bombings in East Africa. He is serving a life sentence.

Just six Guantanamo cases have resulted in convictions so far, with two guilty verdicts being appealed, according to the military commissions’ website. In one appeals case, a federal court overturned two of the three convictions of Ali Hamza al Bahlul, the suspected publicist for slain al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden. An appeal decision is pending on the third charge.

ADVERTISEMENT

Pentagon officials defended the pace of proceedings, saying that it takes time to resolve many of the classified documents submitted as evidence.

“The Department of Defense is committed to fairness and transparency in the military commissions proceedings,” Pentagon spokeswoman Lieutenant Colonel Valerie Henderson said in an email.

‘RISK-AVERSE SYSTEM’

ADVERTISEMENT

President George W. Bush signed the law creating the tribunals on Oct. 17, 2006, after the U.S. Supreme Court struck down previous tribunals set up to try al Qaeda suspects, ruling that they violated U.S. military law and the Geneva Conventions.

Obama took office in 2009 and vowed to close the prison. He approved legislation that included barring the use of evidence obtained under torture. The effort to close Guantanamo stalled amid opposition from Congress, with Republicans saying many of the prisoners are too dangerous to release.

ADVERTISEMENT

John Yoo, who helped draft the Bush administration’s legal strategy after 9/11, said the Guantanamo courts were designed for plea bargaining to get suspects to cooperate with government intelligence agencies.

The Supreme Court ruling “slowed the whole thing down, and it has become a risk-averse system that doesn’t want to make another mistake,” said Yoo, now a law professor at the University of California, Berkeley.

Government interference is also an issue. Sept. 11 defense lawyers have found their meeting rooms bugged, had mail with clients seized, and contend that the Federal Bureau of Investigation has tried to infiltrate a defense team.

ADVERTISEMENT

Last year, a Sept. 11 suspect at Guantanamo recognized that a court interpreter had also worked at a Central Intelligence Agency prison where he was held.

“Every issue that comes up is a new and novel issue that can take days” to resolve, said Morris Davis, a former Air Force colonel and the first Guantanamo prosecutor.

(Reporting by Ian Simpson; Editing by Scott Malone and Andrew Hay)


Report typos and corrections to: [email protected].
READ COMMENTS - JOIN THE DISCUSSION
Continue Reading

Breaking Banner

Britain’s Prince Harry and Meghan to give up royal titles — ‘the hardest #Megxit possible’

Published

on

Britain's Prince Harry and his wife Meghan will give up their royal titles and public funding as part of a settlement with the Queen to start a new life away from the British monarchy.

The historic announcement from Buckingham Palace on Saturday follows more than a week of intense private talks aimed at managing the fallout of the globetrotting couple's shock resignation from front-line royal duties.

It means Queen Elizabeth II's grandson Harry and his American TV actress wife Meghan will stop using the titles "royal highness" -- the same fate that befell his late mother Princess Diana after her divorce from Prince Charles in 1996.

Continue Reading

Breaking Banner

GOP senator tells home-state press that impeachment trial must be ‘viewed as fair’: report

Published

on

Republican Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) spoke to local reporters on Saturday about her role in the upcoming Donald Trump impeachment trial.

Murkowski explained she would likely vote with Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) on an initial vote on whether to allow witnesses. However, she left the door open to voting for witnesses after House impeachment managers make their opening case.

"I don't know what more we need until I have been given the base case," she said. "We will have that opportunity to say 'yes' or 'no' ... and if we say 'yes,' the floor is open."

Overall, Murkowski said it was important for the trial to been viewed as fair.

Continue Reading
 

Breaking Banner

White House press secretary urged to do her job: ‘We don’t pay you to be a Twitter troll’

Published

on

White House press secretary Stephanie Grisham was blasted on Saturday over the confusion resulting from her refusal to hold daily press briefings.

CNN senior media reporter Oliver Darcy was alarmed that Grisham's assistant, Hogan Gidley, was forcing reporters to refer to his remarks as coming from a "sources close to the President's legal team."

Darcy noted that Trump had repeatedly questioned the veracity of unnamed sources, making it problematic for Gidley to demand to be quoted as such.

https://twitter.com/oliverdarcy/status/1218704788432572422

Grisham responded to the criticism and asked Darcy to "stop with the righteous indignation.

Continue Reading
 
 
Help Raw Story Uncover Injustice. Join Raw Story Investigates for $1 and go ad-free.
close-image