More Due Process, Guantanimo Style
The New York Times reports that Witness names are to be withheld from detainees. The military judge for the next scheduled trial has ruled that the lawyers for the detainee may not tell the detainee, or anyone else, who the witnesses are.
Thus the lawyer can’t ask his client while getting ready for the trial, “so what do you know about 'A,' he’s on the government’s witness list.” When I’ve asked that question of clients in civil litigation, I’ve learned things like “A” wasn’t even there. “Check out the list of employees at the time, A was working on another project.”
The rationale is that hiding the identity protects the witness from intimidation and retaliation. It probably does do that; but, it also prevents the defendant from effectively defending himself.
9 comments:
So, according to the secret witness behind the screen, the defendant is guilty. This is corroborated by the post-waterboard confession.
The prosecution's case would appear to be iron-clad.
This is deeply troubling, and I fail to see how any of it is good for America. This country has lost its soul.
There is an amazing quote by Ben about people being afraid to loose their liberty having already lost it... and I ruined the quote because I don't have time to find it - but that is the idea.
It seems that we are so prepared to fight to protect ourselves from other people that we are willing to give up what we are fighting to protect.
Guy and ladies,
Exception may have the point here, I'd analogize to the first amendment. Fermi, living here in Atlanta will have read about the Gwinnett County Police arresting a guy who drove a van with banners that showed gruesome pictures of aborted fetuses. Since, Gwinnett has backed off, kind of.
I'm not a member of a right to life group; but, such a group has every right to offend me, scare me and otherwise try to get me to change my mind.
It seems to me that our Government is afraid of openness, maybe having lost its soul, trusting to smoke and mirrors behind the screen in the land of Oz.
"It seems that we are so prepared to fight to protect ourselves from other people that we are willing to give up what we are fighting to protect."
That says it. When we lose our soul, change the rules to protect ourselves from we think, an evil, we become the otherside.
as a sort of parenthetical to the topic at hand, I heard a couple of lawyers on NPR today. They are lawyers who have taken the defense case of guantanamo detainees and they are going to trial in the upcoming .... Okay, I didn't catch the time period, but it was upcoming.
And it seemed to me that they were laying out their whole defense on that broadcast. As anon-lawyer, perhaps I am naive but doesn't that poison or nullify their case?
This administration continually seems to err on the side of the state's interests (and err on the side of defining the state's interest as coincident with the head of the executive branch). At least it makes them predictable.
I heard a bit of the same piece on NPR, not having heard it all, I'm not sure what all they said; but, for the most part, facts aren't going to matter in these cases. What will matter is the procedure. Is is in compliance with statute and the Constititution.
What continually amazes me is the Administration's adamance that it will cut any corner, even if it doesn't have to.
I may have missed one, but as I recall, there has been one Guantanimo adjudication, a plea bargain, earlier this year of an Australian. His sentence is up this month or next.
Hundreds of detainees have been released, quietly without an "I'm sorry." Hundreds of others are still being held because the countries we grabbed them from won't take them back, though even the Administration admits we had no basis to grab and now hold.
I'm with Fermi...the USA of George W. Bush is now the USA of George Washington, or hell, even Ronald Reagan.
Not...not now...I need to learn to proofread...
Post a Comment