Another judge bars Guantanamo legal adviser from advising another Guantanamo trial.
By on Aug 15th, 2008 at 1:10 pm
Another judge bars Guantanamo legal adviser from advising another Guantanamo trial.
Yesterday, a federal judge barred Brig. Gen. Thomas Hartmann, the legal adviser at Guantanamo Bay, “from acting as a legal adviser in the trial of an accused terrorist at the Guantánamo war court.” Judge Stephen Henley ruled that Hartmann’s aggressive advocacy of the trials by military commission had “compromised the objectivity necessary to dispassionately and fairly evaluate the evidence and prepare the post-trial evaluation.” Earlier this year, Hartmann was barred from the trial from Salim Hamdan’s trial after a separate military judge found he had “exerted improper influence on the case.” Hartmann still has oversight over 19 other Guantanamo cases.
View Most Popular
Advertisement
What We're About
What We're Fighting For
What We're Fighting Against
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Afghanistan
Bachmann
Beck
Boehner
Business
Civil Rights
Congress
Corporate Ethics
Dobbs
Economy
Education
Election
Energy
Environment
Ethics
Fox News
Gingrich
Global Warming
Health Care
Hoffman
Immigration
International Relations
Iraq
Justice
LGBT
Lieberman
Limbaugh
Media
Military
O'Reilly
Obama
Palin
Pelosi
Politics
Race
Radical Right
Religion
Sports
Steele
Stimulus
Tea Parties
Tea Party
Terrorism
Veterans
Women's Rights
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
Reports
In-depth studies on select topics
Got a hot tip?
Have a hot news tip? We'd love to hear from you. Use the form below to send us the latest.
ArchivesBlog Roll
The Military: “We can’t have a military attorney involved in these trials who is actually interested in getting the accused a fair trial”. Nosiree…
Why even continue with these Kangaroo Courts. They make no difference. The Bush Crime Family has already made it clear even if they were to be found not guilty, they would still be held indefinitely as an enemy combatant. Did you know that the military officers who were on the Hamdan jury weren’t told this until after they had rendered their verdict. One of the guys on the jury then said “Well, we worked very hard to make sure that Mr. Hamdan got as fair a trial as we could give him, why did we bother?”
August 15th, 2008 at 1:25 pmthe kangaroo court just became even more stalinesque (as if that were possible)… after all – why would america (land of the ‘free’, home of ‘democracy’, ‘beacon of justice’… snark) want these to be even close to fair ‘trials’?
these ‘trials’ are as much about ‘justice’ as the ‘trial’ of saddam hussein was…
August 15th, 2008 at 1:29 pmBilbo Hussein Baggins Says:
Why even continue with these Kangaroo Courts.
August 15th, 2008 at 1:25 pm
______
As a mammal, I find the use of this term in reference to the farce of justice at Guantánomo insulting to my marsupial cousins.
August 15th, 2008 at 1:34 pmshow trials, kangaroo courts, Nazi people’s courts, Gitmo Military tribunals, all are the same, regardless of the name.
Guilty = imprisonment, torture, death.
Not Guilty = imprisonment, torture, death.
Gitmo, Abu Ghraib, Soviet gulags, Nazi concentration camps, all the same.
August 15th, 2008 at 1:38 pmWhy would any of these ‘guests’ want to go to trial, anyway? McDepends said it is ‘one of the nicest places to live’ and a vacation paradise?
Probably just as nice as the Astrodome, where Babs Bush said the Katrina survivors had it better than they did in their own homes.
Just askin’
August 15th, 2008 at 1:39 pm“… on Wednesday another Guantánamo general, Army Brig. Gen. Gregory Zanetti, testified that Hartmann was ”abusive, bullying and unprofessional” in his drive to stage the tribunals in a crude compound called Camp Justice on an abandoned airstrip here.”
Camp Gulag would be more apt.
But this case is about a boy who was captured, after tossing a grenade that injured three servicemen. Which causes one to wonder just how many other “foreign combattants” never were members of any terrorist group, but acted alone, perhaps in retribution for some American act. Lumping them in with members of organized terrorist outfits would seem to serve no purpose, other than to pump up the numbers of captured “terrorists,” for media purposes. But can someone who might commit such a “terrorist” an act while enraged, because a loved one was just killed by American forces (or some such horrifying reason), really be considered a terrorist? Or does it take more than one act to prove a pattern, and to earn one the label of “terrorist?”
August 15th, 2008 at 1:42 pmWhy even continue with these Kangaroo Courts. They make no difference. The Bush Crime Family has already made it clear even if they were to be found not guilty, they would still be held indefinitely as an enemy combatant.
With scant months left in office, how exactly will Bush ensure this? This a directive with no moral or political weight, once he leaves office. Obama should review these specious decisions, and take corrective measures, when necessary.
August 15th, 2008 at 1:48 pmbarfly Says:
But can someone who might commit such a “terrorist” an act while enraged, because a loved one was just killed by American forces (or some such horrifying reason), really be considered a terrorist? Or does it take more than one act to prove a pattern, and to earn one the label of “terrorist?”
August 15th, 2008 at 1:42 pm
______
For most of the people imprisoned at Guantánamo, all it took was an Afghan warlord or a well-connected Pakistani with a grudge who wanted to make a quick $5,000.
August 15th, 2008 at 1:49 pmJudge Stephen Henley feels that Brig. Gen. Hartmann has “compromised the objectivity”; that would be true only in the case if he showed prejudice towards the accused terrorist. But it is quite the opposite, he seems to be the only one that could “dispassionately and fairly evaluate the evidence”. Where is your objectivity Judge Henley? It seems crystal clear that you are one that is influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, and prejudice; so much for being unbiased….
August 15th, 2008 at 1:56 pmHartmann needs to be barred, period, from “overseeing” any trials at Gitmo. Here’s a couple of reasons why: (Articles written in April 2008)
Col. Morris Davis, for two years the chief Guantanamo prosecutor, is expected to testify that the operation he once led has been infected with political agendas and corrupted by the Achilles’ heel of military justice — unlawful command influence. . . .
“It’s not that I’m sympathetic to the detainees or say they should get a free pass,” says Col. Davis, now director of the Air Force Judiciary. “But I do think they are entitled to a fair trial.”
Attorneys for terrorist leader Osama bin Laden’s former driver, Salim Hamdan, called Col. Davis as a witness after reading his public criticism of the prosecution effort he once led. Col. Davis resigned in October after an internal Defense Department review rejected his claims that it was improper for the same officer, Brig. Gen. Thomas Hartmann, to direct the prosecution effort and, simultaneously, provide legal advice to the commissions administrator, who is supposed to make impartial decisions over whether prisoners are charged and what resources the defense receives.
Davis also decried as unethical a decision by top military officials to allow the use of evidence obtained by coercive interrogation techniques. He said Air Force Brig. Gen. Thomas W. Hartmann, the legal adviser to the top military official overseeing the commissions process, was improperly willing to use evidence derived from waterboarding, a form of simulated drowning. “To allow or direct a prosecutor to come into the courtroom and offer evidence they felt was torture, it puts a prosecutor in an ethical bind,” Davis testified. But he said Hartmann replied that “everything was fair game — let the judge sort it out.”
A few more that need to go as well:
Davis told Navy Capt. Keith J. Allred, who presided over the hearing, that top Pentagon officials, including Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon R. England, made it clear to him that charging some of the highest-profile detainees before elections this year could have “strategic political value.”
Davis said he wants to wait until the cases — and the military commissions system — have a more solid legal footing. He also said that Defense Department general counsel William J. Haynes II, who announced his retirement in February, once bristled at the suggestion that some defendants could be acquitted, an outcome that Davis said would give the process added legitimacy.
“He said, ‘We can’t have acquittals,’ ” Davis said under questioning from Navy Lt. Cmdr. Brian Mizer, the military counsel who represents Hamdan. ” ‘We’ve been holding these guys for years. How can we explain acquittals? We have to have convictions.’ “
http://www.volokh.com/posts/chain_1209383996.shtml
August 15th, 2008 at 1:57 pmDid Freedom Rebel just get hijacked? Doesn’t sound like him/her.
August 15th, 2008 at 1:59 pmHe’s still the Kangaroo-in-Chief!
August 15th, 2008 at 3:36 pm“He said, ‘We can’t have acquittals,’ ” Davis said under questioning from Navy Lt. Cmdr. Brian Mizer, the military counsel who represents Hamdan. ” ‘We’ve been holding these guys for years. How can we explain acquittals? We have to have convictions.’ “
Pretty much sums up “military justice” under the Bush Administration . . . makes you proud to be an American.
August 15th, 2008 at 11:51 pm