Bush’s Botched Gitmo Trials: What Comes Next
Bush’s Botched Gitmo Trials: What Comes Next
The Bush administration’s five year odyssey to create a parallel justice system to put suspected terrorists on trial was dealt yet another setback on Monday when two separate military judges ruled that the Military Commissions currently have no jurisdiction over any of the detainees at Guantanamo.
Here is what happened: In a humiliating blunder, the Military Commissions were drawn up to apply only to detainees determined to be “unlawful enemy combatants,” but no detainee at Guantanamo has ever been determined to be an unlawful enemy combatant. The tribunals hastily established by the Bush administration only classified detainees as “enemy combatants,” a category that can include lawful and unlawful enemy combatants.
One might think that someone in the government would have noticed this discrepancy before Monday. Either they did not, or they simply assumed that since this is a trial system created out of whole cloth they could make up the rules as they went along and niggling details like jurisdiction wouldn’t get in their way. It is in some ways encouraging that the military judges refused to go along with this sloppiness and followed the letter of the law.
Here is what did not happen: The military judges did not make any evidentiary ruling on whether or not the two detainees were actually “unlawful enemy combatants,” meaning the government can re-file these charges against these two detainees at any time. Additionally, even though these charges were dismissed, the detainees were not released from custody. In fact, even if they had been acquitted, they would not have been released, since the Bush administration maintains that the war crimes trials before the Military Commissions have no bearing on whether the detainees are lawfully detained as enemy combatants subject to imprisonment until the cessation of hostilities.
At least one of three things will happen next:
– The government can appeal the judges’ rulings, however this seems unlikely because in another demonstration of this shoddy system the appeals court that would hear the government’s claims has not yet been created;
– The government could reconstitute the tribunals that made the original determination that the detainees were enemy combatants and seek a new ruling that they are unlawful enemy combatants;
– or Congress could amend the statute that created the Military Commissions to allow the Commissions themselves to first determine if a detainee is an unlawful enemy combatant.
It is hard to believe that with all the past failures and this latest breakdown, no one in Congress or the Bush administration is seriously talking about scrapping the Military Commissions in favor of civil or military trials conducted under established U.S. law.
The contrast in the last few days between the Guantanamo commissions and U.S. courts could not be more evident, as the arrest and indictment in federal court of the men accused of plotting to attack JFK airport stands against the missteps at Guantanamo. Anyone should be able to recognize what is working and what is not. If the Bush administration won’t, Congress should force the end of this charade at Guantanamo.
– Ken Gude
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
GITMO is a legal nightmare and disaster, but Bush does not care because he needs the facility as a fig-leaf to justify his phony “War on Terrorism”.
June 6th, 2007 at 11:45 amThe only solution is to close Gitmo.
Any detainees that have already been cleared should be sent home immediately.
Any detainees still pending adjudication should be sent to the Federal court system where they belong. And if they are cleared, they should be sent home immediately.
Less than half the detainees at Gitmo were real terrorists. Most were just caught up in the dragnet or turned in for a cash bounty.
June 6th, 2007 at 11:46 amnext? shut down gitmo, end the wars, repeal the military commissions act and the patriot act…
then get the government to start following the constitution. It’s not just a mere suggestion, it’s the law.
Some further reading:
“To Whom Does the Bill of Rights Apply?”
June 6th, 2007 at 11:47 amhttp://www.populistamerica.com/to_whom_does_the_bill_of_rights_apply
These prisoners could be held for life (since we’re supposed to be in Iraq for 50 years), even if they’re acquitted of any charges filed against them.
This is sick. This is not what we are about.
BushCo has destroyed us.
SNAFU
June 6th, 2007 at 11:51 am1. Fifty-five percent (55%) of the detainees are not determined to have committed any hostile acts against the United States or its coalition allies.
2. Only 8% of the detainees were characterized as al Qaeda fighters. Of the remaining detainees, 40% have no definitive connection with al Qaeda at all and 18% are have no definitive affiliation with either al Qaeda or the Taliban.
3. The Government has detained numerous persons based on mere affiliations with a large number of groups that, in fact, are not on the Department of Homeland Security terrorist watchlist. Moreover, the nexus between such a detainee and such organizations varies considerably. Eight percent are detained because they are deemed “fighters for;” 30% considered “members of;” a large majority – 60% – are detained merely because they are “associated with” a group or groups the Government asserts are terrorist organizations. For 2% of the prisoners, a nexus to any terrorist group is not identified by the Government.
4. Only 5% of the detainees were captured by United States forces. 86% of the detainees were arrested by either Pakistan or the Northern Alliance and turned over to United States custody. This 86% of the detainees captured by Pakistan or the Northern Alliance were handed over to the United States at a time in which the United States offered large bounties for capture of suspected enemies.
5. Finally, the population of persons deemed not to be enemy combatants – mostly Uighers – are in fact accused of more serious allegations than a great many persons still deemed to be enemy combatants.
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=885659
June 6th, 2007 at 11:57 amZooey > Bush refuses to release the guy who was 15 when he was captured in Afghanistan and is now 20. THe young man might be an old man by the time he gets released if ever.
June 6th, 2007 at 11:57 amI hope we don’t have to wait until January 2009 to close Gitmo.
And the rest of Chimpy’s gulag. He’s held 70 THOUSAND detainees in Iraq alone. And most of them are not combatants.
Gitmo is going to be Chimpy’s legacy. Detaining the wrong guys and torturing them. Way to go, Repukes.
June 6th, 2007 at 12:00 pmTom3 > Hillary Clinton may not close GITMO if she becomes president. She seems to have made an agreement to continue the Bush Regime policies.
June 6th, 2007 at 12:05 pmI hope we don’t have to wait until January 2009 to close Gitmo.
Comment by Tom3 — June 6, 2007 @ 12:00 pm
#
You are much more optimistic than me. I hope the next president does close Gitmo, but I wouldn’t bet on it. I hope you are right though.
June 6th, 2007 at 12:05 pmWell, I’m not surprised if most people at the DoJ went to the Law School at Regent Univ.
June 6th, 2007 at 12:06 pmThe Bush adminstraton policies have been a prime example of the premise that a negative outcome is predictable when governments set out upon a deceitful and dishonest path.
June 6th, 2007 at 12:06 pmWow, that is really good news. Could it be that we might someday follow the Geneva Conventions again?
~Sean
June 6th, 2007 at 12:08 pmWho’s bright idea was all this? Looks like it’s working astonishingly well… Just another example of how the Bush Administration is to feeble minded to think things all the way threw.
June 6th, 2007 at 12:10 pmThe solution is not to close Gitmo because another similarly organized facility could replace it somewhere else in the world, most likely hidden from public scrutiny. The answer is to get rid of the ideology and the enablers of that ideology who have the power to administer such facilities in this inhumane, illogical manner.
June 6th, 2007 at 12:15 pmBTW, Enemy combatants are clearly defined in the Geneva Conventions. And they do have rights. Rights that are not being accorded the inmates at Gitmo. Lawful combatants are POWs; unlawful combatants are civilians. Even if a detainee is an unlawful combatant, he enjoys all the rights of a civilian and should be charge with a criminal offence or released.
Torture is NOT an option. Nor is solitary confinement. These are violations of the Geneva Conventions. The suspicion has been that the detainees are being held indefinitely to coverup the abuse and torture committed by the USA.
June 6th, 2007 at 12:16 pmread about each person in Guantanamo and see their photo
http://www.cageprisoners.com/index.php
June 6th, 2007 at 12:16 pmAustralian David Hicks became the military commission system’s first scalp when he pleaded guilty on March 30 to a terrorism charge.
But Hicks’s conviction has been questioned after cases against the next two detainees to be prosecuted at Guantanamo were thrown out yesterday.
June 6th, 2007 at 12:17 pmI guess all their Lawyers graduated from Liberty, heh?
June 6th, 2007 at 12:30 pmI wish I could have sold tickets to the Oval Office when the chymp got this news!
June 6th, 2007 at 12:32 pmThe chest thumping and vitriol musta been way off the charts!
Bush refuses to release the guy who was 15 when he was captured in Afghanistan and is now 20. THe young man might be an old man by the time he gets released if ever.
Comment by Jay Randal — June 6, 2007 @ 11:57 am
Jay, at this point, it might be safer to keep him in there for fifty years, because when he gets out, he’ll be mighty pissed off and probably looking to exact some revenge.
Interesting how BushCo and the neocons believe that the way to build peace is to keep your foot on the neck of anyone who looks at you cross-eyed.
June 6th, 2007 at 12:38 pmspit take > if the 20 year old guy got released now, then he might get married and have kids, but if he gets released in his 40s or 50s, then he would probably want revenge bigtime.
June 6th, 2007 at 12:45 pm“4. Only 5% of the detainees were captured by United States forces. 86% of the detainees were arrested by either Pakistan or the Northern Alliance and turned over to United States custody. This 86% of the detainees captured by Pakistan or the Northern Alliance were handed over to the United States at a time in which the United States offered large bounties for capture of suspected enemies.”
Comment by Chris L — June 6, 2007 @ 11:57 am
You KNOW there were plenty of situations like this:
“I never liked that Ali, I just wish there were some way I could get rid of him and get paid at the same time, if there were only some way….”
Anybody in Gitmo not ACTUALLY captured by US soldiers, should be immediately released!
June 6th, 2007 at 12:48 pmThe JAG Corps is not happy with what the Bushies have done with the UCMJ and Gitmo. It is my impression that large numbers of officers are disgusted with what has happend to the service they love and if they weren’t restricted from speaking out by their oath (which THEY take seriously, unlike Georgie) BushCo. would not be able to hide behind ‘Support the Troops.”
June 6th, 2007 at 1:20 pmcan anyone please give me the name of the WWII POW held by the USA who went to trial while WWII was going on?
anyone please, anyone?
How many German and Japanese WWII POW had their day in court while WWII was going on?
anyone please, anyone?
can any of my sycophant, blind toolish followers answer this?
June 6th, 2007 at 1:37 pmChris L – good source thanks…
June 6th, 2007 at 2:01 pmHow did WWII come into view when the discussion more closely relates to the Iraq war and the bad things it wrought. It is easy to consider the Iraq war as the dumbest war America (the Bush team) ever fought. Not so for WWII.
The Bush team’s primary goal was to remove a head of state. And apparently that goal did not address replacing the removed head of state with a new head of state. UnSmart. And the, then (2003) Secretary of State said as much:
“If you break it, you own it”!
So, the Bush team went into Iraq with an almost guaranteed failure. The Bush team removed a head of state and replaced him with NOTHING. Don’t even put WWII in the same paragraph with the Bush team’s war fighting ability.
And the lawless country (Iraq) turned out to be an ideal place for terrorist and terror wannabees to be recruited, trained and sent off to other parts of the world to become a part of World Terrorists.
And speaking of trying terrorist in court? Remember the “shoe bomber”. HE TOLD THE WORLD HE WAS A TERRORIST. So, the Bush team should have had no trouble trying him in a civilian court right? That should have been an “open and shut” case right?
Wrong!
The Bush team messed that up. The Judge was Irate. Seems that somebody was “trying to get the witnesses all on the same page”.
No more civilian courts – next try military courts. After all the head of the Bush team is the Commander In Chief. The military judges should make quick work of the 400 or so locked up in Guantanamo.
But it looks like the military judges used “THEIR” judgement rather than anyone’s else. And once again the Bush team is not happy.
The Bush team did a lot of its work “outside the box” where the constraints of laws, ethics, common sense, reality and good planning don’t interfere with getting the job done.
WHY CAN’T THE REST OF THE WORLD SEE THINGS THE BUSH TEAM’S WAY? Perhaps, a visionary’s life is HARD.
And if the British Government allows Sir Jeremy Greenstock’s book to be published, we may get more insight into the management of Iraq during the early days of the Bush team’s invasion.
Sir Jeremy, in Iraq in 2003, was the one who looked for, but failed to find the American General who job was to create the new Iraqi government.
June 6th, 2007 at 3:40 pmRe: Either they did not, or they simply assumed that since this is a trial system created out of whole cloth they could make up the rules as they went along and niggling details like jurisdiction wouldn’t get in their way.
Ummm….my money is on the latter.
This pretty much sums up the Bush administration since Day 1.
June 6th, 2007 at 5:09 pmPoster troll President Clingon seems woefully ignorant of the Geneva Conventions and WWII. He’s wondering why liberals aren’t celebrating D-Day. Well, it is being celebrated, but it’s not a big anniversary –that would be the one about the Six Day War.
German POWs in North America were only held for 3 years. The boys in Gitmo have been there for 5 years. The Germans were given their rights and could socialize. They were actually paid to work and received adequate food. Not so the boys in Gitmo: they’re held in solitary, tortured, and forbidden contact with the outside world.
And I’m not sure what you’re getting at about trials, Clingon. A POW does not stand trial because a lawful combatant cannot be held criminally responsible form doing the work of a soldier. They are to be held until peace is declared. In the case of Afghanistan, I’d say Hamid Karzai should have some say about the prisoners in Gitmo, but I guess we all knew he wasn’t really a legitimate president. Unlawful combatants can only be so declared by a “competent tribunal” according to the Geneva Conventions –and that doesn’t describe Bush’s Kangaroo Courts. And even unlawful combatant are entitled to all the rights of a civilian court –that is, habeas corpus, legal counsel, a jury of peers, the rejection of hearsay and coerced testimony, and the right to cross-examine witnesses and provide a full and free defence.
I think it’s obvious that Bush doesn’t care about human life or what Jesus would do or what the Constitution or the Geneva Conventions say. He’s a heartless sociopath. There is no presumption of innocence at Gitmo and torture is cruel & unusual punishment. Bush should face charges of War Crimes when he leaves office. And the 10 Republican presidential hopefuls should be asked if they’d pardon Bush the way Ford pardoned Nixon. I’d like to hear that question answered.
June 6th, 2007 at 5:19 pmI may be confused, but doesn’t this give bushco exactely what they want??? Can’t be tried, can’t tell their stories, can’t be released so they continue to rot in Gitmo??
June 6th, 2007 at 5:21 pmSounds good to bush.
Well no, this is who you were before BushCo took office. The same Geneva conventions and non-applicability of rights for guerrilla groups, the same lack of obligation to charge or release such POWs until the end of the war.
So BushCo has ruined your country how ?
June 6th, 2007 at 8:17 pmCapturing al Qaeda and insurgent fighters rather than having a shoot on sight policy ?
And if you think the difference between the two cases is 2 years, you don’t get to call someone else woefully ignorant about WWII.
Seriously, was this 3 year period decided on by some kind of rock-paper-scissors process or was there some kind of significant event like the end of a world war which dictated it ?
Any bells ringing for you ?
Says who ? Anyone with the authority to determine such an application of the geneva conventions as they relate to a host nation ? No ?
Well that leaves you with the President of the US making that decision. How’s that worked out ?
Under what are they entitled to all of this ?
There are people who talk every day about UFOs and look less influenced by fantasy than you people do talking about war crimes charges and prosecutions. It’s not like there’s a fkn shortage of hints either.
So Bush up for war crimes when he leaves office. Okay. What do you say we slot him in between the Khmer Rouge officials still in office for their genocide campaign, the Bosnian genocide campaign commanders or the Indonesian genocide campaign commanders also still in power.
Can he make it to the Hague sometime between never, never and never ? How do those dates suit you ?
June 6th, 2007 at 8:32 pmRESTORE HABEAUS CORPUS!
June 6th, 2007 at 11:52 pm