Military Commissions Create "Second-Class" Justice System, Lawyers Charge

icon gravatar.comwww.truthout.org/1110098
sent by Sparrows since 90 days 21 hours 3 minutes, published about 90 days 11 hours 48 minutes
Air Force Reserve Lt. Col. David Frakt, who resigned his post as a defense lawyer for a Guantanamo prisoner, enjoys a high degree of credibility because of the unique experience he has had. We spoke extensively with Frakt via email. He told us, "Clearly, the new military commissions are a significant improvement, at least on paper, over the previous incarnations. The revisions to the hearsay rules and the establishment of a voluntariness standard for the admissibility of statements are the two most significant improvements." However, he added, "The military commissions are still fundamentally flawed in a number of respects. First, there is no requirement of any pretrial investigation, such as a preliminary hearing or grand jury. Second, there is no derivative evidence rule, or 'fruit of the poisonous tree' doctrine, so even if coerced statements themselves may be inadmissible, evidence derived from those coerced statements may still be admitted into evidence. Third, the MCA still authorizes the trial of detainees for a variety of offenses that are not traditional war crimes, including material support to terrorism, terrorism, conspiracy, and the invented offense of murder in violation of the law of war. Fourth, juveniles may still be subject to trial by military commission."
tags: mca, second-class justice, despotism
2 commentscategory: Abuse of Power/Corruption karma: 151

comments

  1. #1    Frakt concludes, "Military commissions are wholly unnecessary. There are virtually no examples of true war crimes committed by detainees during the armed conflict that started after 9/11. Almost all the offenses relate either to pre 9/11 activity and involve material support to terrorism, conspiracy and terrorism. These offenses can be effectively tried in federal courts."

    Colonel Frakt continues: "Now that that the evidentiary rules in military commissions have been tightened to more closely resemble the rules in federal courts, the real reason for the creation of military commissions - the ability to gain easy convictions on tainted evidence - has largely been removed. But the taint of the original process still lingers. The perception that the military commissions are a second-class option remains."
    written by Sparrows since 90 days 21 hours 2 minutesSparrows
  2. #2    Frakt referenced an amendment South Carolina Republican Sen. Lyndsey Graham sought to insert into the bill. Graham commented that people who are terrorists don't deserve full constitutional rights. Colonel Frakt responded by charging that Graham "is clearly prejudging the cases and affording a presumption of guilt, not innocence. The Constitution sets forth the minimum due process that we believe is necessary to ensure a fair trial. Why would we ever want to go below that?"

    Frakt concludes that "the criteria for determining which cases go to commissions and which to federal courts make no sense. Basically, the cases will go to federal court if the Justice Department wants t...

    » ver todo el comentario
    written by Sparrows since 90 days 21 hoursSparrows
closed comments
Who has negatively flagged this story?


who are we
code: license, download  |  images license Valid XHTML 1.0 Transitional    Valid CSS!   [Valid RSS]