Obama To Continue Military Tribunals

[Purveyor]

Source: LA Times

By Julian E. Barnes
4:05 PM PDT, May 14, 2009
Reporting from Washington -- The Obama administration will announce Friday that it will continue to use military commissions to prosecute some terrorism suspects, current and former officials said -- reversing a campaign promise to abolish the controversial tribunals started under President George W. Bush.

Human rights groups reacted with anger Thursday, arguing that any trials under the commissions would be widely viewed as tainted and that the Obama administration was duplicating Bush's mistakes.

The administration intends to try some of the detainees being held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, in federal courts, as President Obama has pledged. But officials have concluded that some detainees can only be tried in military tribunals, said a U.S. official familiar with the changes.

Gabor Rona, the international legal director of Human Rights First, said the international community was unlikely to view the tribunals as legitimate.

"Everyone knows the military commissions have been a dismal failure," Rona said. "The results of the cases will be suspect around the globe."

Read more: http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-military-tribunal15-2009may15,0,4322036.story

[IndianaGreen]

1. Obama might as well continue to torture and keep Guantanamo open

and we will challenge him in the primaries in 2012.

The underlying constitutional issue is that Obama wants to keep the power to declare anyone an enemy combatant, and he wants to ignore the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution. This is an impeachable offense!

[gcomeau]

5. Yeah. Also, he might as well drown puppies for sport.

Meanwhile, back in reality, some of us knew all along that one of the giant problems Bush's treatment of those prisoners caused was that it made it damn near impossible to try them in a normal court of law because all the evidence would be ruled inadmissable under the rules those courts operate by.

Remember that?

So Obama was faced with either finding some way to get around that, or letting those people loose. And in the case of the people we know are guilty letting them loose would be a non starter. It looks like, in SOME cases, they couldn't find a way to get past the damage Bush had caused to the legal cases in a federal court system so they went looking for some other way to deal with those cases.

Are military tribunals an ideal resolution? Hell no. But neither is just letting known terrorists walk. Obama was in for a crapstorm no matter how he handled this thanks to the situation he was handed from Bush. I for one recognize that.

[IndianaGreen]

7. Bullshit argument! We have lots of terrorists in federal prison

all of which were properly tried and convicted.

Now, if you want a tyrant for President to put anyone in prison without ever bringing charges, in violation of the US Constitution, then you should have kept Bush.

[gcomeau]

12. Ummm... hello?

Yes. Yes we DO have lots of terrorists in federal prisons who were properly tried and convicted.. The whole goddamn POINT of that statement is that they were... wait for it... PROPERLY tried and convicted.

They were treated PROPERLY within the confines of the justice system. So they presented no problem to proceeding with regular prosecutions under thate systems. Now, how is this a different situation than trying to convict someone the government locked away and illegally tortured between the time of their capture and their trial? Hmmm?

Think it over. Take as long as you need.

[No Elephants]

65. If they were tortured, they may have a lawsuit against the US, but that does not mean they are

relieved of guilt under criminal charges. Of course, whether we tortured them or not, we have to prove them guilty.


Now, if the only evidence we have of their guilt came from our torture of the prisoner or the torture of the person who ratted out the prisoner, then maybe, just maybe, the prisoner is not guilty to begin with.

[magellan]

8. We KNOW they're guilty?

How? Are we a nation of laws or not?

[No Elephants]

66. Apparently, the second one, the one after the word "or."

[Old Coot]

9. I agree.

We have to be realistic.

[ima_sinnic]

11. there's a reason their testimony is "inadmissible." they've been tortured.

DOH! but obviously you, like bush and now apparently like obama, doesn't care about that. anything anybody said while sleep deprived for 11 days, with hands shackled to the ceiling and with electrical wires periodically zapping their genitals is "evidence" of "terrorism."

but it will remain SECRET, because in a system of LAWS, it is grounds for dismissal. anything goes when there's no law, eh? the imperial executive can call anybody guilty and if he says so, it must be true.

[gcomeau]

15. Ummm... duh?

And yes, I very much DO care about that. And rather obviously so does Obama.

Caring about it doesn't magically make the legal system suddenly able to convict those people properly... precisely BECAUSE they were tortured.

[grahamhgreen]

50. WE LIVED IT! How America was turned into a fascist state. With smiles and flags...

[TheLastMohican]

57. It all started long time ago

when the remnants of the Nazi camp somehow found their refuge in the CIA pond right after WWII.

[grahamhgreen]

61. It's interesting being witness to history in this way. These boards are a catalog of the struggle.

[No Elephants]

69. Torture does not preclude a conviction. Lack of solid evidence precludes a conviction. If we have

evidence against them, we can convict them. If the only evidence we have is a confession that has been obtained through torture, then they should not be convicted in any court.

Same as garden variety crimianl court--if the only evidence we have is a confession that has been improperly obtained, the accused goes free.

[alarimer]

43. Most of them aren't terrorists at all.

Some of them were children when they were picked up. Many were surrendered for the reward money.

They should all be released back to where they were captured. The whole thing is a clusterfuck and the sooner we rid ourselves of it, the better.

Obama can go to hell.

[saigon68]

68. Yes New Boss same as Old Boss

This is a very disgusting twist in the evolution of freedom and democracy in this country.

Dick "5 Deferments" Cheney must be masturbating to this news as its being released

[Iowa]

22. Excuses, excuses, excuses...

"..one of the giant problems Bush's treatment of those prisoners caused was that it made it damn near impossible to try them in a normal court of law because all the evidence would be ruled inadmissable under the rules those courts operate by."

Yes, that's how it's supposed to work. It's the only thing that stands between the people and corrupt prosecutions. There's a little thing called "liberty" that you seem all too willing to sacrifice. Why? Are you afraid?

"So Obama was faced with either finding some way to get around that, or letting those people loose. And in the case of the people we know are guilty letting them loose would be a non starter... letting known terrorists walk."

We have far more to fear from an oppressive government than we do from these Cheney-created bogeymen you seem to be afraid of. Your argument just doesn't fly.

[IndianaGreen]

23. The Constitution is so inconvenient...

so saith the likes of Richard Nixon, George W. Bush, and Dick Cheney.

Looks like Obama is finding the Constitution a bit inconvenient as well.

[gcomeau]

25. No, just reality.

Obama is just trying to clean up the mess as best he can manage. Is he proposing repopulating Gitmo with more prisoners? Keeping military tribunals as a permanent means of dealing with future detainees? Crazily enough, I don't see him doing either one of those things.

But he has to do something about the group of prisoners he inherited. And obviously the review he had conducted of their cases showed that the Bush administration had, in SOMe of those cases, created a situation where two different factors were at play.

1. We had effectively no doubt these guys were guilty of really, really bad things.
2. We had no way to conventionally prosecute them within the confines of the civilian justice system because the previous administrations conduct had destroyed any ability to do so.

So, what the hell would YOU do about it? Let them walk?

[JonLP24]

26. I would play by the rules

We can't prosecute them in a civilian justice system so we prosecute them anyways? Don't think it can't happen to you. Jose Padilla US citizen listed as "enemy combatant". First it was muslim, second, unless we get rid of the government's powers it could identify a wide range of american citizens "enemy combatants"

It doesn't matter who the President is, these insane powers must be taken away and we need to get back to playing by the rules beause it can happen to you or me.

[gcomeau]

28. Spell that out, if you don't mind.

In your next reply, you're the president. Fun huh?

Elaborate on EXACTLY what you think "playing by the rules" would entail and how you would go about doing that. Was that a statement that you would take an entire population of known terrorists and simply release them? Want to share the speech you'd give to the electorate when you tell them you're letting a whole collection of terrorists just walk right out of custody? Or did you think there was some other "playing by the rules" option that worked better?

[JonLP24]

30. Alright

First thing I'd do is not break my campaign promises

Get rid of that enemy combatant thingy.

If I have no evidence, even evidence Bush gained thru torture I would conduct an interrogation by law enforcement manual. 5th Amendment rights intack. If he doesn't break or gives up anyone release them.

The ones I do have evidence not gained by torture I arraign them and set or revoke a bail depending on the seriousness of the crime they are charged with but I'd leave that decision up to a judge. They sit courtside until they stand trial.

That is pretty much it. I'd tell the electorate the truth because we need a President who isn't compromised. I might last one term but I'd effect major change.

[No Elephants]

71. What entire population? How many people are we talking about? BTW, Bushco

released some of them when the court ruled that they could not be held indefinitely without being charged.

BTW, how does a person arrested become a "known terrorist?" Innocent until PROVEN guilty. No trial means not proven guilty.

That was the Catch 22 Bushco would never face up to and now you are doing the same thing and okay Obama's doing it as well.

[Iowa]

36. Good question...

"So, what the hell would YOU do about it? Let them walk?"

No... I would see to it that they receive a fair trial. And if that resulted in them walking, I would let them walk - absolutely and without hesitation. Letting bad guys walk is the price we pay for prosecutorial misconduct. And there are very good reasons for that. We have far more to fear from a totalitarian government than from criminals - even "really, really bad" criminals.

You know, this is really a no-brainer. All the mental heavy-lifting has already been done by the folks who composed the Constitution. There's absolutely nothing difficult or new here. Besides, the country has faced FAR bigger threats and survived without succumbing to fear.

Freedom and liberty involve risk. I would rather be free than safe, and I am revolted by what appears to be a growing pussification of America.

[gcomeau]

53. Oh? A fair trial?

And you would do that... how?

In... a civil court? Where the case will be instantly thrown out? That kind of fair trial?

Or, perhaps you might have to get a little unconventional to get the trial to happen. Perhaps... RETOOL A MILITARY COURT then do it there. Maybe? Perhaps?

Sheesh.

[No Elephants]

72. Why is the case instantly thrown out? Because there is absolutely no evidence of

guilt? Does it occur to you that a case like that SHOULD be thrown out?


Maybe someone accused this person in order to settle a shia/sunni grudge or to collect a bribe.



According to the article in the OP:

"The Obama administration contends its revisions would improve the system by banning the use of any evidence obtained through coercion and restricting the use of hearsay evidence."

So, how would a military court that ignores evidence obtained through torture be different from a federal court that ignores evidence obtained through torture?

[No Elephants]

70. How do you get no doubt that someone is guilty of really, really bad things when you

have no evidence, other than a confession obtained by torture?

But, yes, if we have nothing on them but information obtained via torture, yes. Let them walk. There aren't that many of them. Follow them. Wiretap them. Infiltrate their neighborhood. Do whatver you have to do.

It's better than putting our values and the rule of law on a funeral pyre.

BTW, Obama's doing something wrong is no better than Bush doing something wrong. Actually, IMO, it's worse.

[Umbral]

39. Hence the water dog - it makes it more of a challenge.

[varkam]

46. Sorta...

One of the big problems with military tribunals is the reduced standard of evidence when it comes to things like hearsay - not just evidence that was obtained via torture. It's not just a treatment issue - it's a due process issue.

[nichomachus]

62. You're right -- but

this now falls into the category of "two wrongs don't make a right."

Bush & Co, did taint these cases so badly that they wouldn't survive in any civilian court for more than five minutes.

But it raises the question of whether we can then move the goalposts, if we consider ourselves a nation of laws.

It's like if the local police beat the living crap out of a guy and torture him to get a confession. We know the case id going to be tossed. What do we do, create a special court so we can get the verdict we want, despite police misconduct?

If we do that, then the Constitution is, as Bush claimed, just a goddamned piece of paper.

[Old Hank]

80. That's incorrect, gcomeau

Not all evidence would be barred from Federal Court. Only confessions about torture.

[Zhade]

2. Another broken promise.

He's not getting my vote next time.

Chances are, no one will. I'm done enabling those who lie to me.

[Iowa]

37. Well said. I agree.

[bemildred]

3. Stupid. nt

[florida08]

4. he just keeps rolling over doesn't he

He will anounce in a year that we have to leave Gitmo open too..he's losing me fast

[marshall]

27. Aren't they having trouble finding someplace to house the prisoners?

Even those congress members who want them out of Gitmo don't wan't them in their own district's prisons. They can't just be turned loose--there would be hell to pay and we'd never hear the end of it if even one of them got involved in future terrorist acts.

Obama is between the proverbial rock and hard place.

[florida08]

54. put them in Supermax

KSM is there. Give them a trial on whatever credible evidence they might have..stop torturing them and if found guilty sentence them or let them go back to their own country. We can't live in the 'what if' state. That's where cowards live. If we're not a nation of law then just what are we? There won't be any trumpets blowing come the judgement day.

[marshall]

56. But then there's the Chinese prisoners

They would be summarily executed if they were deprted to their own country. What to do?

[florida08]

59. judge

ordered them to be released last year during Bush. An inter-agency panel found they belonged to the East Turkistan Islamic Movement and did train in al-Qaeda camps. But the plan is to release them into the US. Sweden was going to give asylum but apparently China stopped them. They consider them terrorists and want them to stand trial. Germany is considering a request for 9 of them..7 could be released here. Canada might take some too. They'll figure it out.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/0512/p06s13-woeu.html

[Amonester]

42. Yep. About at the same time his approval rattings will sink...

to meet the ones dimson left with.

[TheLastMohican]

58. His will sink faster.

He was a lot of "promise" and "change".
But it appears he serves his corporate masters better than the american people.

DINO's make me sick. He could have endorsed Libberman for all I care.

[No Elephants]

73. It's still open. It will be open until someone announces that it has been closed. He need not

announce anything at all between now and the closing.

[ima_sinnic]

6. I fell for the "constitutional scholar" con.

"community organizer" worked on me, too. now I know he meant the "elite community of corporate war mongers and fraudsters."

[No Elephants]

74. Roberts is a heck of a Constitutional scholar. Guy is brilliant and as knowledgable as they

come. Okay, maybe not on the oath of office, which messed up because he arrogantly insisted upon doing it from memory and then even more arrogantly ignored Obama's cues to go back and correct. Other than that, though, he's absolutely dazzling, as he was during his confirmation hearings.

But, he's a Republican. So, he uses his knowledge to justify wrong things. (If Constitutional issues were all that clear cut, we would not have had so many 5-4 and plurality opinions throughout the history of the SCOTUS.)

so, it's not so much knowledge of the Constitution that we need. It's a person whose ideals are in the right place and who will stick to principles. IMO, we simply did not have a candidate like that running in 2007-2008. But, that's hindsight.

[bluestateguy]

10. It was never the tribunals that bothered me; it was the abrogation of due process

Military tribunals are perfectly constitutional, and to tell you the truth, I prefer trying the people we have a Guantanamo, rather than simply warehousing them indefinently. I am enbcouraged by the changes the White House has put forth.

[JonLP24]

17. I understand it is a constitutional system

I was in the Military but was never tried in a tribunal(personally I'd rather be tried in a civilian court) but isn't a Tribunal where the Prosecutor, Judge, Lawyer, and Jury the military? If I am right that is unfair for someone considered a 'terrorist'. However let me know if I am wrong.

[No Elephants]

76. Due process, though, does not mean the same thing in these tribunals as it does in

civilian courts. If what bothered you was the total lack of charges, a trial and an attorney, then the SCOTUS rulings have taken care of that. Even Dummya caved on those things after the rulings.

[Mari333]

13. who the hell is he sucking up to? nt

[grahamhgreen]

49. He foolishly believes it was the power brokers that got him elected, not us...nt

[Solly Mack]

14. ...

...

[ixion]

16. meet the new boss, same as the old boss

sure, he can speak well, but the fact that he continues the folly of empire speaks volumes as to who really runs things "behind the scenes."

[Hissyspit]

18. The military people are getting to him.

He talks to them every day pretty much. I doubt he talks to progressive bloggers every day.

[No Elephants]

75. Not the same. He stopped torture. Well, maybe except for rendition.

[ShortnFiery]

19. MORE OF THE SAME!

:nuke:

[othermeans]

64. How dare you insult Kaptain Kangaroo! Mr. Greensleeves I don't care too much about.

[Name removed]

20. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MasonJar]

21. What has happened to him? Was he a phony all along? He might as well have

blown up innocent frogs as a kid. No wonder he said he might only have one term. Boxer for President. For one thing, if I am smart enough to know Petraeus et al are covering their own backsides, then Barack Obama should be smart enough. If he is not, then who wants him; if he is, he'd better get his act together quickly because the people will soon catch on to the charade.

[Downwinder]

24. Well, I guess if you want to use third party hearsay

you have to have your own kangaroo court. After all we have laws against that in the U.S.A. Thats O.K. we will just use offshore courts.

[Stand and Fight]

29. Sigh...

Jaded. Just jaded.

[jillan]

31. I wonder what or who got to him....

I feel like we've entered the twilight zone :crazy:

[livefreest]

32. HOW DO WE FALL FOR THIS EVERY TIME?

let's first wait and see the exact frame-work Bush used before we condemn Obama on the basis of a leak

[DU GrovelBot]

33. ## PLEASE DONATE TO DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND! ##

This week is our second quarter 2009 fund drive.
Donate and you'll be automatically entered into our daily contest.
New prizes daily!



No purchase or donation necessary. Void where prohibited. Click here for more information.

[Mark Twain Girl]

34. Damn. I don't know what to say anymore. nt

[flyarm]

35. "By any measure our system of trying detainees has been an enormous failure " statement by Obama

http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2009/05/...

Obama To Git-Mo Better Military Tribunals
By: bmaz Saturday May 9, 2009 11:41 am


The GOP squeals and Obama greases their detainee wheel. On May 1st, the New York Times warned that President Obama was contemplating reinstating the tyrannical Bush/Cheney military tribunals for Gitmo detainees.

Yes, the same Barack Obama that forcefully pronounced to the American public during the election:


By any measure our system of trying detainees has been an enormous failure,

Not to mention declaring that as President he would:


reject the Military Commissions Act.

That was then, this is now. And now, today, it is seems nearly confirmed that military commissions will be back. From Peter Finn at the Washington Post:

The Obama administration is preparing to revive the system of military commissions established at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, under new rules that would offer terrorism suspects greater legal protections, government officials said.

The rules would block the use of evidence obtained from coercive interrogations, tighten the admissibility of hearsay testimony and allow detainees greater freedom to choose their attorneys, said the officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly.
...
Officials said yesterday that the Obama administration will seek a 90-day extension of the suspension as early as next week. It would subsequently restart the commissions on American soil, probably at military bases, according to a lawyer briefed on the plan.

To be clear, the Administration indicates that Obama has not given the final sign off on the plan, and the ACLU has already sworn to fight any such plan. One thing is for certain, however, Obama is not contemplating this move in order to give the detainees so tried the equivalent level of due process and justice that would be afforded by American courts, else he would simply use American courts as he stated was his intention while campaigning for votes.

[No Elephants]

77. But., but. the WH said he was NOT breaking any campaign promise. So,

he isn't. So there.

[Eric J in MN]

38. Is it OK for the Mexican military to put Americans on trial?

Is it OK for the El Salvadoran military to put Americans on trial?

[BobRossi]

40. GWO

George W. Obama

[Barack_America]

41. This is starting to get depressing. nt

[DallasNE]

44. Will Some Of The Ground Rules Be Changed

The problem is how messed up everything is. The government really has no evidence that is admissable in a regular court of law. Charges would have to be dismissed and the prisoners set free. That only leaves the military tribunals with their much more lax rules regarding evidence and threshold for conviction (doesn't have to be a unanimous decision). The choices (try them in a kangaroo court or set them free) are butt ugly thanks to the Bush administration. I grudgingly have to say I must reluctantly agree with this decision. It stinks but it stinks less than turning them loose only to see them return to the battle lines in Afghanistan, fighting American soldiers. Thanks George W. Bush.

[Beacool]

45. Oh, what a tangled web we weave.............

Particularly in a rush to fulfill a campaign promise.

;(

[deacon]

47. The winds of change have come to a screeching halt. n/t

[grahamhgreen]

48. Hard to believe Obama...

[DerekJ]

51. The photos now this, this is very disappointing. :(

[No Elephants]

78. Not to mention, he has not ruled out rendition.

[QUALAR]

52. Obama Being Blackmailed

Can you say Sealed Indictment? Rezko and Blagojevich may have something to do with all of Obama's doublespeak and reversals. It's the only reason I can think of why Obama retained all of Bush's District Attorneys especially the corrupt ones in Alabama and Mississippi. I hope I'm wrong about this, but hope is waning because of Obama's erratic behavior. After all the corporate welfare he has the gall to say we cannot afford single payer health care. He better get it done or he'll be a one term wonder.

[ShortnFiery]

55. "one term wonder"

You got that right. This is not CHANGE.

It may have to become "truly dire" and "full depression status" before the complacent American Populace wakes up and says NO MORE.

I, for one will NOT vote for another CENTRIST, TRIANGULATING, THIRD WAY democrat ever again.

My next vote for the Presidency will NOT be wasted on Dennis Kucinich.

It's going to have to become "really evil and dire" before The People FORCE the Congress to stop putting CORPORATE interest first. :(

[No Elephants]

79. He says he is getting rid of the attorneys, though.

[underpants]

60. Oh bullshit. this is one step in the process

[dipsydoodle]

63. Now done - latest news

Obama to revive Guantanamo trials.

President Barack Obama has announced he is to revive military trials for some detainees at Guantanamo Bay.

However, he said legal rights for those facing the military commissions would be significantly improved.

Mr Obama had halted the trials as one of his first acts on taking office in January, saying the US was entering a new era of respecting human rights.

The decision to revive the military trials has brought harsh criticism from some US civil liberties groups.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/8052676.stm

Welcome to Animal farm. x(

[ohio2007]

67. But they released one "French" citizen yesterday. The odds are against him that he will return

to a life of "inner struggle".

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x3879533


Only 10% of those released went on to their virgin rewards promised them the afterlife besides, I'm sure the French will keep an eye on this patriot,Boumediene, freed from the Gitmo Bastille.