Oh, that? I only read one article.
By Thoreau
Apparently there are plans to hold trials for Gitmo detainees. I will move away from cynicism and adopt a patient wait-and-see approach. I admit that I am worried about some of the discussions of special new courts that can handle secret evidence, but I’ll at least wait and see whether the Star Chambers materialize.
Hat tip to Hesiod in the comments.
Comment by Eric the .5b —
November 10, 2008 @ 1:15 pm
It’s not the most encouraging proposal. The Bushies built their own “new court system” for detainees, and we can see how that worked out.
Still, getting them out of Gitmo is a half-step in the right direction.
Comment by Hesiod —
November 10, 2008 @ 1:56 pm
It’s not the most encouraging proposal. The Bushies built their own “new court system†for detainees, and we can see how that worked out.
Still, getting them out of Gitmo is a half-step in the right direction.
Did you even fucking read the article?
Comment by Eric the .5b —
November 10, 2008 @ 2:18 pm
Why, yes – and unlike some, I read past the first fucking paragraph.
Comment by dhex —
November 10, 2008 @ 3:06 pm
a positive half-step in the right direction?
the phrase “new system of justice” is, um, interesting.
Comment by Eric the .5b —
November 10, 2008 @ 3:48 pm
Well, if it happens. Currently, it’s more like “looking vaguely in the right direction with a wistful look”.
Comment by Donald Johnson —
November 10, 2008 @ 5:04 pm
“”It would have to be some sort of hybrid that involves military commissions that actually administer justice rather than just serve as kangaroo courts,” Tribe said. “It will have to both be and appear to be fundamentally fair in light of the circumstances. I think people are going to give an Obama administration the benefit of the doubt in that regard.”"
I hate that last sentence. I hate it more if it is true.
Comment by the talking dog —
November 11, 2008 @ 1:02 pm
The federal courts already have mechanisms for dealing with classified evidence, e.g. The Classified Information Procedures Act, and the courts have been remarkably leak proof over the years. After all, we tried Moussaoui, got a plea on Lindh, did the first WTC bombings, the Oklahoma City cases and so forth, all without flushing due process down the toilet.
Further, to the extent that there are acquittals (heavens) of terrorist suspects, the Obama Admin. can point out that this is simpy a reflection of the obvious: the Bush Administration was often too incompetent to either preserve usable, admissible evidence, or else actually held innocent men for seven years for no reason.
To the extent any variant of “business as usual” is proposed, that would… suck.
Comment by Nell —
November 11, 2008 @ 3:42 pm
Also, the Obama organization is denying that any specific proposals have been solidified, which I believe. Their national security, State Dept., Defense, and AG picks are going to have to have a chance to weigh in together, and they haven’t made all those choices yet.
Glad to hear about the full-page ACLU ad in the NY Times. Despite the Post writer’s remark that “The future of the military prison at Guantanamo Bay barely registered in the campaign”, both candidates explicitly committed to close Guantanamo when the subject was raised during the debates and in interviews.
Thanks to the media’s unwillingness to focus on issues in any depth at all, the fact that there seemed to be agreement gave even less focus than usual to the issue. I’m sure both candidates were happy not to have their positions examined any more closely than that.
Comment by Nell —
November 11, 2008 @ 3:53 pm
@the talking dog:
Agree heartily with your post but would withhold assent on the Lindh example.
He was interrogated without lawyers present in the U.S. He was also tortured by U.S. military while in custody in Afghanistan.
The Jane Mayer article covering his case is still not archived on the New Yorker site. Have you read The Dark Side yet? I haven’t; much of her Lindh material might have been included there.
Comment by the talking dog —
November 11, 2008 @ 4:45 pm
I have indeed read The Dark Side, and lots of other stuff on the subject.
Yes, Lindh was arguably railroaded, to be sure. HOWEVER… Lindh chose a plea in federal court; he could have chosen a trial in albeit questionable circumstances where he might well have been convicted amidst public outrage (though he could well have had a successful appeal given the intentional deprivation of his right to counsel and right to remain silent ORDERED PERSONALLY BY JOHN ASHCROFT HIMSELF over the objections of a DOJ ethics lawyer, who in turn, was tormented by Ashcroft’s DOJ).
Lindh opted to lock in 20 years in supermax rather than risk life. Bad as this was, he was still not facing the nightmarish Kafkaesque hole-for-up-to-life reserved for non-citizens at GTMO, and elsewhere, without such a day in court, or even charges against him.
Lindh is a fiasco at every level, but the most notable one is macro– the sheer stupidity and venality of the Bushmen: here is a WHITE ANGLO KID who did what no Western intel service could do– just walk right in to A.Q. central. And so… do we de-brief the hell out of him to actually get the intel we need to WIN THE WAR ON TERROR?
Hell no! A scapegoat is more important to cheerlead for the rubes back home. And we reward the Bush Admin. for its stupidity by reelecting it. Game. Set. Match.
Comment by Thoreau —
November 11, 2008 @ 4:54 pm
Good point about Lindh, Talking Dog.
Comment by Idi Amin's Last Meal —
November 13, 2008 @ 10:51 pm
the Oklahoma City cases and so forth
Bitch* set them up!
*Janet Reno
Comment by Idi Amin's Last Meal —
November 13, 2008 @ 10:53 pm
In reality, a Janet Reno at DOJ in the coming admin would be perfect. The only Clinton era figure toward whom I feel no enmity. (Gore is close, but he gets a big thumb-down for bringing Liebermann into the national conversation.)
(Would that Liebs only were giving out Silver Sewer Awards (with moral titan Wm. Bennett).)
Comment by SebyIrobbySef —
November 19, 2008 @ 8:55 am
Reason why is great to be a gay
A 5 day vacation requires only one suitcase. It was joke