About the revised military tribunal rules the president outlined . . . this was positive:

[bigtree]

"We will no longer place the burden to prove that hearsay is unreliable on the opponent of the hearsay."


I always thought this was one of the most outrageous tenets of the military trials. A great deal of the evidence against many of the accused prisoners is hearsay - a lot from sources who are missing or dead. The old rules made them prove the source was unreliable. Ridiculous.

Bravo, if this revision prevails and is applied with significance and the necessary weight against other circumstantial and remote evidence presented.

transcript of prepared remarks: http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/05/obamas-national-security-speech.php?ref=fpa

[endarkenment]

1. You cannot torture people for eight years and then conduct a fair trial.

That ship left a long time ago. There is nothing that can be done, short of releasing and compensating the victims of our gulag, that would be within the set of actions that can be described as 'justice, due process, rule of law'.

[bigtree]

2. that's just not going to happen

[endarkenment]

3. because our republic has lost its way

and we the people have no power to effect substantive change and instead accept that 'that's just not going to happen'. So instead we will accept the unacceptable because one version of a gross miscarriage of justice is less gross than another version of a gross miscarriage of justice.

"That is just not going to happen" does not in any way make Kangaroo Kourt Rev 3 more palatable than Kangaroo Kourt Rev 2. It is a non-argument.

[bigtree]

5. umm

I don't see any value in squinting our eyes and blocking out the political realities surrounding these policies. We will, of course, put our best argument forward, but the resolution and disposition of these issues will be even more complex than the president's speech alluded to.

Just because I don't believe there will be some mass release of prisoners on the grounds you outlined doesn't make that belief my 'argument' for or against the myriad of issues and concerns surrounding these policies and actions by the Executive. It's just an observation. If you know some political route through this Congress to that end, I'd be interested in hearing it.

[zipplewrath]

4. You can, but it's hard

You can, but it sure is hard. They won't be able to use anything that came from torture, or really anything that came AFTER torture, unless it is independently confirmed. They can't use anything from anyone else that was tortured, or really that had a knowledge and reasonable expectation that they too could be tortured. And, you'll be up against a claim by the defendent that they are inhibited in participating in their own defense because of the torture. That leaves very little upon which to convict someone. Truly, it makes it difficult to know if you even have the "right" person.

[bigtree]

7. right

It'll make it harder to railroad these prisoners. But, I don't underestimate their zeal to use some lever or the other to keep the bulk of these prisoners under jeopardy, despite the revised rule.

[endarkenment]

9. independent confirmation does not work as

the well is poisoned. Attempts to establish firewalls and claim that there was no information flow between torture sources and 'independent investigators' are beyond dubious.

Then there is the small matter of detention without charge or legal council for eight years. Even without torture that atrocity would preclude a fair trial.

There is exactly one just solution: release and compensate. Oh and everyone involved in this war crime needs to be identified, indicted, charged and tried, under the rule of law, with all due process.

[FrenchieCat]

14. That's why this is a fucking mess.....and Obama called it just that!

The new janitor has been left to clean it all up, while being beaten by brooms sticks and mops all the while.

[mmonk]

6. But that premise in law already exists.

Therefore, I have difficulty with formulating different sets of laws, systems, and standards.

[bigtree]

8. you're right, of course.

. . . and much more in those commissions out of line with the 'due process' the president said he believes in.

[EFerrari]

10. Obama can't untaint that process no matter how much he tries

to normalize it rhetorically.

[bigtree]

11. looks like we'll have a tainted process then

. . . the middle of the road, where he all but said he's heading, will be nothing more than a deliberate move away from his own (hardly progressive) policy toward the right.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

12. Putting lipstick on the military tribunal pig?

Why do I think that entrusting a "fair trial" to the same people who imprisoned the prisoners for questionable (at best) reasons, tortured them, and have every reason to ensure that the discredited process is justifiable, are unlikely to be very interested in instituting justice over self interest?

Kinda like entrusting Mafia to be self-regulating.

[EFerrari]

13. It's a political calc for him, of course. And, to tell you the truth,

I'm not sure that those detainees tried that way won't do better than the ones who have to wait for fifty two Republican tantrums and fifty two cave ins by the Democrats to be transferred here and tried in the courts. It may wind up being faster for them.

It stinks for the rule of law in America.