[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Sign-in] [Mail] [Setup] [Help]
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
|
War, War, War See other War, War, War Articles Title: The Right to a Guilty Verdict Obama's empty promise of due process for terrorism suspects President Barack Obama says he is determined to guarantee "meaningful due process rights" for terrorism suspects. But it turns out he is committed to due process only when it achieves the result he wants. In July the Defense Department's top lawyer declared that the president has the authority to detain people accused of belonging to or assisting terrorist groups even after they're acquitted. The only point of prosecuting them, it seems, is to create an impression of due process while continuing Bush detention policies that Obama has repeatedly condemned. We already knew that Obama plans to keep 90 or so of the 229 men who remain at the Guantanamo Bay prison, which he has promised to close by January, in "prolonged detention" without trial. In a May speech the president said these prisoners "cannot be prosecuted" because there is not enough admissible evidence against them but cannot be released because they "pose a clear danger to the American people." At the same time, Obama promised to minimize the number of detainees who fall into that category. "Whenever feasible," he said, "we will try those who have violated American criminal laws in federal courts." If that's not possible, he said, suspected terrorists can be tried by military commissions, which "allow for the protection of sensitive sources and methods of intelligence gathering" and "for the presentation of evidence gathered from the battlefield that cannot always be effectively presented in federal courts." Obama, who criticized the Bush administration for failing to give detainees due process, bragged about strengthening protections for the accused. Thanks to his reforms, he said, defendants tried by military commissions will have "greater latitude in selecting their own counsel" and "more protections if they refuse to testify"; introducing hearsay evidence will be harder, and statements elicited through "cruel, inhuman, or degrading interrogation methods" will be banned. But how "meaningful" can such due process rights be when a conviction is the only outcome the government plans to respect? "If you have the authority under the laws of war to detain someone," Pentagon General Counsel Jeh Johnson told the Senate Armed Services Committee in July, "it is true irrespective of what happens on the prosecution side.…If a review panel has determined this person is a security threat [and] if for some reason he is not convicted for a lengthy prison sentence…we would have the ability to detain him." It's hard to imagine a situation in which the government thinks it has enough evidence to convict someone on terrorism charges but doesn't think he poses "a security threat." Since only guilty verdicts count, Obama might as well go directly to "prolonged detention" by presidential order, except that would reveal how little difference there is between him and his predecessor in this area. Although Obama faults the Bush administration's "ad hoc legal approach," he too is leaving his options open. "We are indeed at war with Al Qaeda and its affiliates," he says. The implication is that anyone accused of ties to Islamic terrorism-which could mean anything from undergoing training or planning an attack to donating money or building a website-can be treated as a prisoner of war, held without trial until the "cessation of hostilities" (in effect, forever). Alternatively, he can be tried by a military commission for violating the laws of war, or he can be tried in federal court on a charge such as providing material support for terrorism. "In our constitutional system," Obama says, "prolonged detention should not be the decision of any one man." Yet under the principles he and his underlings have laid out, the choice of how to treat a given terrorism suspect-whether apprehended here or abroad, on a battlefield or off, now or in the future-is entirely up to him. In the end it may not matter much. When freedom is not a real possibility, due process is just for show. Senior Editor Jacob Sullum (jsullum@reason.com) is a syndicated columnist. © Copyright 2009 by Creators Syndicate Inc.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 5.
#2. To: Ada, all (#0)
SOB! Set those goat-herders and cab-drivers free with a plane ticket back to their homes. How much longer can this tortured legal charade continue?
They gotta keep 'em cause they can't try them. They can't try them because in most cases there's no "there" there. In the cases where these guys took up arms and shot or blew folk up, these sons of goat-herders know too much about their American handlers.
Yep - we've backed ourselves into a total CYA situation - totally indefensible under our Constitution, and yet they keep on with it. It is so transparently Un-Constitutional, that it makes my hair hurt. Let's don't even get started on it. Those guys couldn't spell CAT, if you spotted them the C and the A. Insanity.
And there's always worse news. Put away any sharp objects in the immediate vicinity. Five American soldiers got sucker punched by an Afghan policeman they were working with today. F***er killed five of out guys. And that hood ornament in the White House is off lollygagging in Copenhagen where he got his ass handed to him. I'll bet the catering is first-class in Copenhagen.
#6. To: randge. all who are sick of the shit that's going on here (#5)
Yes, they've plenty drugs and boy-toys there. I've heard.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest |
||
|
[Home]
[Headlines]
[Latest Articles]
[Latest Comments]
[Post]
[Sign-in]
[Mail]
[Setup]
[Help]
|
||