Confirmation of Show Trials at Guantanamo Bay

[Alexander's Horse]

Defence Force lawyer lashes Hicks court
By Tom Allard
August 2, 2005

Insiders confirm obvious: the Hicks fix is in

Australia's top Defence Force lawyer has lambasted the US military court David Hicks faces as "unobjective" and "wrong" following the release of sensational emails of US prosecutors which describe it as rigged.

The emails, which were given to the media yesterday, allege that defendants accused of terrorism were being denied material that would help their case, and claim there was a predetermined policy to find them guilty.

The head of Australia's military bar, the navy's Captain Paul Willee, said the claims, if true, were extraordinary and "very, very disturbing".

But even if they were groundless, as the Pentagon insists, he said the structure of the military commission - as the court is known - meant that Hicks would not get a fair trial.

"Can he get a fair trial? Personally, I'd say absolutely not," he told the Herald. Stressing that he was commenting as an individual, Captain Willee said: "It just doesn't lend itself to being open and fair and reasonable in its whole process."

The Federal Government yesterday maintained that the US military commission was independent and fair, even though many other countries - including Britain - have refused to have their citizens appear before it.

Advertisement
AdvertisementThe Attorney-General, Philip Ruddock, said the Government would investigate the claims in the emails by the former Guantanamo Bay prosecutors, Captain John Carr and Major Robert Preston, who allege:

 The chief prosecutor "repeatedly" said commission members had been "hand-picked and will not acquit these detainees";

 Another government agency - either the FBI or CIA - would withhold 10 per cent of material defence lawyers sought, including any "exculpatory information", which would benefit defendants such as Hicks;

 Documents from the FBI outlining the abuse of defendants while they were detainees were destroyed;

 The chief prosecutor admitted he was "good friends" with the authority that ran the commission and could overturn any positive findings for defendants;

 The inadequate preparation of cases could "constitute a dereliction of duty, false official statements or other criminal conduct".

The chief prosecutor, Colonel Frederick Borch, who has left his post, rejected the allegations as "monstrous lies". The Pentagon, which runs the commission, said it had investigated the claims and judged them to be false.

The Hicks family described the process as a scandal but the Foreign Minister, Alexander Downer, said the commission had been restructured after the emails were written in March 2004. "We believe that the appropriate safeguards are in place to ensure that the trial is a fair trial," he told ABC radio.

Captain Willee said the commission members' lack of legal qualifications was a "recipe for disaster" and apparent conflicts of interest among them rendered the process "unobjective". He said the limitations on gathering and testing evidence were "fundamentally flawed".

"It's patently obvious that this is wrong," he said.

The Federal Government has always insisted that there was a strong case against Hicks, who has been charged with conspiracy to attack civilians, attempted murder of coalition forces and aiding the enemy in Afghanistan.

Major Preston and Captain Carr left soon after they sent their emails and now work for the US Air Force.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/defence-force-lawyer-lashes-hicks-court/2005/08/01/1122748580103.html?oneclick=true

This illegitmate process is bringing so much shame and dishonour on the USA and doing so much damage to the US image abroad. Its completely counter productive to winning hearts and minds in the war on terror and actually helps recruitment for terrorists. Even close uS allies don't support the Gitmo trials.

If the USA has strong cases against the inmates of Gitmo, why don't they just cut their losses and put the accused before proper civil courts or courts martial?

Meanwhile the Hague Tribunal processes against Yugoslavian war criminals are going very well and enjoy broad international respect. The US of course refuses to recognise the Hague Tribunal. Funny old world we're living in.

[Wiglaf]

For every ten innocent terrorists who get off, one will be guilty, and when he flies a plane into a building, suddenly Taliban symapthizers will go out of style again.

There have been reports of fair treatment as well. I can link them all day long. The truth is the only people who know what's going on are the congressmen who already went to Gitmo and Ok'd the procedures there.

Bear in mind that these are people who could arguably have zero legal standing...and bipartisan panels have said they are living high off the hog.

[Traianvs]

Yeah, the yankees, with all their military might, fail to grasp that they're not winning the hearts of muslims around the world working the way they're doing right now. That's why Bush and co are a bunch of noobs

[Q Classic]

Originally posted by Wiglaf
For every ten innocent terrorists who get off, one will be guilty, and when he flies a plane into a building, suddenly Taliban symapthizers will go out of style again.

That phrasing disturbs me. Are we automagically assuming everybody's a terrorist now?

Originally posted by Wiglaf
For every ten innocent terrorists who get off, one will be guilty, and when he flies a plane into a building, suddenly Taliban symapthizers will go out of style again.

I had no idea knee-jerk republicans were ****ing off those in jail.

[BlackCat]

The real shame is that they haven't yet figured out if they are common criminals, war criminals or simple war prisoners. Said that, there are no problems that they still are imprisoned - after all, they are not just rounded up at the local Macdonald.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Said that, there are no problems that they still are imprisoned - after all, they are not just rounded up at the local Macdonald.

Unfortunetly some of them were. For plenty it was a case of being in the wrong place at the wrong time and afterwards we've found out they weren't involved in jack.

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Said that, there are no problems that they still are imprisoned - after all, they are not just rounded up at the local Macdonald.

Unfortunetly some of them were. For plenty it was a case of being in the wrong place at the wrong time and afterwards we've found out they weren't involved in jack.

You have made me pretty curious - can you give any examples ?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Here is a biased (admittedly) account of one:

http://www.cageprisoners.com/articles.php?id=8219

January 31, 2005: Federal judge Joyce Hens Green rules that the detainment of Murat Kurnaz violates the U.S. constitution and the Geneva Convention. She held that exculpatory proof was held back by the military and that no evidence of terrorist attacks planned by the accused existed.

In addition, a former confidential document on Murat Kurnaz was relieved by the military secret service -- the Command Information Task Force (CITF) -- saying: CITF has no evidence which would prove a connection (of the accused) to Al Qaida or that he would be a specific danger to the United States."

Despite all these judgments and secret service appraisals, Kurnaz is still detained at Guantanamo Bay. His German lawyer, Bernhard Docke, suspects that now he might be kept in prison for different reasons. He said he won't rule out the possibility that the U.S. military doesn't want him to tell the world press anything about the situation at Guantanamo Bay.

[BlackCat]

Ok, as I read it, this guy is caught somewhere (?) and he can't be connected to current terrorist actions, but still, he isn't rounded up af some local McDonald - my guess is that he is caught in Afghanistan.

I am not sure what status is for (potetntial) terrorists is under current law - my guess is that there actually isn't any law covering this when we are talking about bilateral (probably the wrong word) situations since he probably has no conection to those involved in the "conventional" war and it's laws.

Your answer implies that the person is a german citicen, but since he is caught in an afghanistan/american dispute, germany should at most give legal aid; not have any influence.

[Imran Siddiqui]

but still, he isn't rounded up af some local McDonald

The problem with that statement is that 'local McDonalds' can be anywhere. The local McD's there? Here? Europe?

[Alexander's Horse]

Another article on the same subject.

Insiders confirm obvious: the Hicks fix is in
By Marian Wilkinson National Security Editor
August 2, 2005

Australia's Attorney-General, Philip Ruddock, would do well to carefully read the leaked memos from the US prosecutors on the flawed military commission trial that will judge David Hicks.

Most tellingly, Captain John Carr, a military prosecutor, told his superiors well over a year ago "the evidence does not indicate that our military and civilian leaders have been accurately informed of the state of our preparation, the true culpability of the accused or the sustainability of our efforts". The Pentagon, he believed, was poised to "prosecute fairly low-level accused in a process that appears to be rigged".

His colleague Major Robert Preston was even more blunt: "Surely they don't expect that this fairly half-arsed effort is all that we have been able to put together after all this time."

This view, of course, has been put many times before, by scores of international lawyers, US military officers, the American Bar Association, the Australian Law Society, Amnesty International and the British Attorney-General, Lord Goldsmith. Now we know that some of the Pentagon's own prosecutors shared their opinions and were deeply concerned that the Pentagon was spinning the President and his cabinet ministers that the trials were under control.

Ever since Hicks was charged in late 2003, Ruddock and the Prime Minister, John Howard, have been insisting they are satisfied the case against Hicks is strong and he will receive a fair trial. They have repeatedly defended his detention for more than three years, much of it in solitary confinement, on this basis. But their confidence is based on assurances from the US Attorney-General and from President George Bush. Now, it appears, this was not the opinion of at least some of the prosecutors on the ground.

Long before these latest leaks, the evidence that Hicks will not receive a fair trial has been overwhelming. Goldsmith and his Prime Minister, Tony Blair, were so alarmed by the unfairness of the military commissions they refused to allow their citizens to be tried before them. To list just a few of the flaws, evidence gained under torture can be used against the accused and prosecutors may not even have to produce their witnesses but merely read their statements into the record.

The Bush Administration bowed to British pressure and sent all its detainees home. By contrast, the Howard Government, which was closely involved with the British negotiations, declared itself fully satisfied and gave the military commissions its tick of approval. That approval came not long before Carr and Preston were writing their damning emails. Preston called the commissions "a severe threat to the reputation of the military justice system and a fraud on the American people".

But most disturbing for the Australian Government should be Carr's claim that the military panel judging Hicks had been chosen to ensure the accused would be convicted. He wrote to the chief prosecutor, Colonel Frederick Borch: "You have repeatedly said to the office that the military panel will be handpicked and will not acquit these detainees and we only needed to worry about building a record for the review panel".

Borch dismissed these claims in his reply to Carr, calling them "monstrous lies".

Yet for those of us who sat through the first stage of Hicks's trial at Guantanamo Bay last year, Carr's charge has a ring of truth.

The judging panel was exposed time and again by Hicks's lawyers for its conflicts of interest and its overall lack of experience to handle the cases. The admission by the head of the panel, Colonel Peter Brownback, of his long, close friendship with the Pentagon officer in charge of running the military commissions was deeply embarrassing. The lowest point came when one member of the military panel stumbled over key provisions of the Geneva Conventions.

Last year's proceedings were observed by the American Bar Association, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and the American Civil Liberties Union, all of which roundly criticised the process.

With the Hicks trial set to resume within weeks, it may well be time for Canberra to finally listen to the other side of the argument.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/insiders-confirm-obvious-the-hicks-fix-is-in/2005/08/01/1122748580178.html

You might well ask why our government is allowing David Hicks to remain at Gitmo. The reason is, if you could call it that, Hicks hasn't committed any offenses under Australian law but the current Australian government wants him prosecuted so is quite happy to collaborate with US authorities to achieve this end. They also accepted repeated assurances from President Bush that the case against Hicks was strong and the military commission trials would be fair. Shameful.

[Proteus_MST]

Originally posted by Wiglaf

There have been reports of fair treatment as well. I can link them all day long. The truth is the only people who know what's going on are the congressmen who already went to Gitmo and Ok'd the procedures there.

Doesn´t have to say much.
If the officers in charge for Gitmo know in advance when the congressmen will arrive,
they might just put up a little show for them, being extra nice to the inmates of Gitmo while the congressmen stay and return to their usual practices as soon as the congressmen depart

It´s a common practice in normal enterprises if they know in advance of an inspection to carefully check if everything if polished and there´s nothing the inspectors could find, so why shouldn´t the military do the same thing?

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

but still, he isn't rounded up af some local McDonald

The problem with that statement is that 'local McDonalds' can be anywhere. The local McD's there? Here? Europe?

In the current case it was a McD somewhere in Aghanistan. I don't know if he is guilty or not in anything, but according to this (more or less reliable) site he could be :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Hicks

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by BlackCat
You have made me pretty curious - can you give any examples ?

I don't remember the name, but a Kuwaiti went to Pakistan to do charity work helping the expected refugee flood. Unfortunately for him, the flood turned out to be a trickle, so he wasn't needed. On his way back, he was kidnapped by some Pakistani tribesman and sold to the U.S. as a terrorist. The U.S. was paying local tribesman for any Arabs they caught. Maybe this guy's story isn't true, but there's no evidence he was involved in anything. He's still in Guantanimo.

[Alexander's Horse]

There was also the case of the Afghan taxi driver who cruised past Bagram airport looking for fares at the wrong time and ended up at Gitmo - after being tortured by US forces at the base as a suspected suicide bomber.