Team Infidel
Forum Spin Doctor
Washington Post
June 7, 2008
Pg. 14
The trials of Sept. 11 suspects are a discredit to U.S. justice.
IT'S NOT SURPRISING that the five detainees facing military commissions at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, for their alleged roles in the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks would complain about being put on trial. Like Zacarias Moussaoui, the al-Qaeda operative who pleaded guilty in U.S. federal court to charges of conspiring to kill Americans, these men rail against the U.S. government, question the legitimacy of the military commissions and reject court-appointed lawyers. Some also claim to have been tortured. But unlike Mr. Moussaoui, the five on trial in Guantanamo have a point.
The CIA has admitted subjecting some detainees, including suspected Sept. 11 mastermind and lead defendant Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, to waterboarding, a procedure that simulates drowning and that has long been considered torture under U.S. and international law. Yet the rules of the commissions do not allow Mr. Mohammed or his defense lawyers to raise questions about his treatment. The Guantanamo detainees also face a process far less fair than the one that was available to Mr. Moussaoui: He was represented by a team of civilian lawyers, and his trial was overseen by an independent federal judge who had a lifetime appointment. The Guantanamo detainees are principally represented by military lawyers, and the commissions are presided over by a military judge. This is not to say that military lawyers and judges can't provide unbiased results, but when defense lawyers and the judge wear the military uniform of the United States, legitimate questions arise about their impartiality.
Mr. Moussaoui's lawyers were permitted to review all of the evidence against him, although at times that evidence was subject to special procedures to protect classified information. The detainees' lawyers face far greater restrictions, and the detainees are prohibited from seeing or responding to certain evidence that may prove crucial to their defense. Mr. Moussaoui's trial in federal court was far from perfect: He often disrupted hearings with wild outbursts and littered the court file with profane submissions. With military commissions, however, it is the government that has made a mockery of the proceedings by refusing defendants some basic elements of due process.
The Supreme Court is expected to rule this month on whether those at Guantanamo have a constitutional right to challenge their detentions in federal court; if the justices rule in the detainees' favor, they may very well render moot all of the proceedings at Guantanamo. In that case, Congress and the administration should remake the system to provide detainees with as many as possible of the protections that are available in federal court. This would not only bolster the legitimacy of the proceedings, it would also help to restore the image of the United States in the eyes of the world.
June 7, 2008
Pg. 14
The trials of Sept. 11 suspects are a discredit to U.S. justice.
IT'S NOT SURPRISING that the five detainees facing military commissions at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, for their alleged roles in the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks would complain about being put on trial. Like Zacarias Moussaoui, the al-Qaeda operative who pleaded guilty in U.S. federal court to charges of conspiring to kill Americans, these men rail against the U.S. government, question the legitimacy of the military commissions and reject court-appointed lawyers. Some also claim to have been tortured. But unlike Mr. Moussaoui, the five on trial in Guantanamo have a point.
The CIA has admitted subjecting some detainees, including suspected Sept. 11 mastermind and lead defendant Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, to waterboarding, a procedure that simulates drowning and that has long been considered torture under U.S. and international law. Yet the rules of the commissions do not allow Mr. Mohammed or his defense lawyers to raise questions about his treatment. The Guantanamo detainees also face a process far less fair than the one that was available to Mr. Moussaoui: He was represented by a team of civilian lawyers, and his trial was overseen by an independent federal judge who had a lifetime appointment. The Guantanamo detainees are principally represented by military lawyers, and the commissions are presided over by a military judge. This is not to say that military lawyers and judges can't provide unbiased results, but when defense lawyers and the judge wear the military uniform of the United States, legitimate questions arise about their impartiality.
Mr. Moussaoui's lawyers were permitted to review all of the evidence against him, although at times that evidence was subject to special procedures to protect classified information. The detainees' lawyers face far greater restrictions, and the detainees are prohibited from seeing or responding to certain evidence that may prove crucial to their defense. Mr. Moussaoui's trial in federal court was far from perfect: He often disrupted hearings with wild outbursts and littered the court file with profane submissions. With military commissions, however, it is the government that has made a mockery of the proceedings by refusing defendants some basic elements of due process.
The Supreme Court is expected to rule this month on whether those at Guantanamo have a constitutional right to challenge their detentions in federal court; if the justices rule in the detainees' favor, they may very well render moot all of the proceedings at Guantanamo. In that case, Congress and the administration should remake the system to provide detainees with as many as possible of the protections that are available in federal court. This would not only bolster the legitimacy of the proceedings, it would also help to restore the image of the United States in the eyes of the world.