U.S. Begins 'Secret' Military Show Hearings of Terror Suspects With No Defense Lawyers Present

[bigtree]

March 10, 2007. 8:08pm

The United States has begun secret military hearings to determine if 14 alleged terrorists held at Guantanamo Bay should be declared enemy combatants, and thereby subjected to military trial.

The 14 suspects include the man accused of masterminding the September 11 attacks on the United States, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.

The proceedings are being held behind closed doors with no defence lawyers present.

Michael Ratner, a lawyer representing one of the detainees, says that the court process is a charade.

"The outcome has been pre-determined," he said.

"When you go into one of these special - what I have to call a kangaroo hearing - you already have been determined to be as quote "enemy combatant".

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200703/s1868529.htm

[mmonk]

1. Sad that we have devolved into this

type of system.

[Monkeyman]

2. And we are a Country of Honor and Rights ya right

[Benhurst]

3. "Truth, Justice and the American Way" is soooooooo Twentieth Century. NT

:puke:

[cal04]

4. Trials of Guantanamo suspects begin without a lawyer or reporter in sight

Campaigners have condemned the Bush administration's plan to proceed with secret proceedings against 14 "high-value" terrorism suspects currently being held at Guantanamo Bay. The suspects include Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, accused of organising the 11 September 2001 attacks.

The military tribunals, scheduled to begin tomorrow, will take place behind closed doors and away from the scrutiny of the media. Hundreds of previous hearings held to determine the formal status of the prisoners have been open to reporters. None of the suspects will be able to have a lawyer present.

The Pentagon has said that the so-called Combatant Status Review Tribunals (CSRT) are being held in secret to prevent the possible leaking of classified information. But legal campaigners said the decision had been taken to prevent the revelation of information embarrassing to the Bush administration.

"They're not going to let anybody close," said Clive Stafford Smith, of the UK-based group Reprieve, which represents several dozen Guantanamo prisoners, though none of the 14. "They are trying to stop anyone saying anything about the way they have been abused or which countries they were abused in."

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/article2338360.ece

[Toots]

5. suspects include the man accused of masterminding the September 11 attack

So they finally caught Bin Laden or is he now not the man that "masterminded" the attacks? I wish they would get it straight. I guess bin laden didn't really do anything afterall..

[bigtree]

6. they tortured the hell out of that person. Bush said he got 'valuable' info from him

apparently not valuable enough to catch bin-Laden and the rest like he promised. They passed the torture law citing the info Bush claims he had tortured out of the man.

[Canuckistanian]

9. Yes, if the intel was so 'valuable', where are the results?

With all those tortured people giving up all this information, why is the war going so badly?

And indeed, why is Osama still at large after 6 years?

Why do US troops keep getting ambushed? Why is the military constantly being surprised by events and not being able to anticipate them?

With all the bad press, international protest, Iraqi outrage, AND lack of any significant progress, WHY is torture still being used?

[madokie]

7. Like the captain told me once when I was in the navy and was caught

where I wasn't supposed to be. You wouldn't be here if you weren't guilty, :shrug: I shit you not thats what he told me. in this case I was but it was predetermined that I was guilty, I had no say whatsoever and I had a valid reason to be there too it turned out. again :shrug: but the punishment was already in the past by then

I suspect that prolly none of the people there should be in our custody either. One or two, a few maybe but thats all

[annabanana]

8. It is a disgrace. It's the negation of everything we stand for as a Country.

If we must have a "new category" of enemy to combat the trans-national wahhabi fundies, we must have an International understanding of who they are and how they are to be treated.

[Canuckistanian]

10. What's wrong with making new laws against terrorist groups?

Something similar to the RICO statues, for example. Or criminal conspiracy charges.

Because they know that probably about 70% of the people being detained around the world have no ties to terrorism.

And fair trials will expose the whole farce.

[stonebone]

11. kick