My. The administration can't be happy about this one.
Lawyer Criticizes Rules for Tribunals (washingtonpost.com): A military defense lawyer for an Australian detainee expected to be the first man tried before a military tribunal denounced President Bush's rules for the special courts yesterday, saying they are skewed against defendants and could result in proceedings that resemble political trials in authoritarian Third World countries. Marine Corps Maj. Michael Mori's news conference demonstrated that he and other military defense attorneys appointed by the Pentagon to represent defendants in the tribunals agree on many points with human rights activists around the world who have criticized the tribunals. "The military commissions will not provide a full and fair trial," said Mori, who represents David Hicks, an Australian detainee at the U.S. Navy prison in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, who was arrested while allegedly fighting with the Taliban in Afghanistan in late 2001. "The commission process has been created and controlled by those with a vested interest only in convictions," Mori said. Mori was one of five military defense attorneys for future tribunal defendants who filed a friend-of-the-court brief with the Supreme Court last week seeking access to federal courts for their clients. The U.S. government contends that the 680 alleged al Qaeda and Taliban fighters at Guantanamo Bay are not entitled to access to U.S. courts, whether they are assigned to military tribunals or not.
One would think that the process has difficulties when those charged with carrying out its procedures are willing to go not only on the record, but into the Court to state that the process is inherently unfair. To be sure, as the Pentagon mouthpiece notes, the purpose of defense attorneys is to defend, and to attack any possible rule or avenue that they perceive can be used against their clients.
But.
Doing so in this manner would seem to be contrary to the lawyers' own interests, given that they are military themselves.
Mori said he objects to one rule that bars tribunal judges from dismissing charges filed by Pentagon officials. Another unfair provision, he said, is that convictions are to be appealed not to civilian courts but up the chain of command to the defense secretary and the president. Echoing the privately expressed views of some U.S. military officials, Mori said the tribunals might lead adversary nations to try U.S. soldiers under unjust terms if they are captured in war zones. "What's to stop the North Koreans from arresting a [U.S.] contractor as a spy and trying him under the very rules we set up?" he asked. "We wouldn't tolerate it." Smith, the Pentagon spokesman, said the tribunals will have many rules that are akin to those in criminal courts, including the presumption of innocence and a requirement of proof beyond a reasonable doubt to secure a conviction.
It will be fascinating to see what the Court finally decides to do with this.
Posted by iain at January 22, 2004 11:18 AM
