FW: Kangaroo Courts in Guantanamo (Newsday) [WWW.STOPNATO.ORG.UK]

Boyle, Francis Thu, 21 Mar 2002 11:44:33 -0800

HTTP://WWW.STOPNATO.ORG.UK
---------------------------

Francis A. Boyle

Law Building

504 E. Pennsylvania Ave.

Champaign, IL 61820 USA

217-333-7954(voice)

217-244-1478(fax)

[EMAIL PROTECTED]

-----Original Message-----
From: Boyle, Francis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, March 21, 2002 1:58 PM
To: Killeacle (E-mail)
Subject: Kangaroo Courts in Guantanamo (Newsday)

                   "You're going to have the Department of Defense defending, the Department of
                   Defense prosecuting and the appeals panels is the Department of Defense," said
                   Francis A. Boyle, an expert on the law of war at the University of Illinois. "I think
                   it's going to be perceived internationally as a kangaroo court."

Military Tribunal Plan Detailed
Suspects' rights to appeal, block evidence limited

By Craig Gordon and Timothy M. Phelps
WASHINGTON BUREAU

March 21, 2002

                   Washington - The Bush administration would grant
                   terrorism suspects brought before military tribunals
                   many fundamental protections used in civilian trials but
                   deny them others, limiting their right to block
                   second-hand evidence and to appeal their convictions,
                   even in the case of death sentences, government
                   officials said yesterday.

                   At the same time, the Justice Department announced
                   yesterday that it would go ahead with a new round of
                   anti-terror interviews with foreign nationals in the United
                   States, calling the first phase a success after
                   interviews with more than 2,200 people yielded a
                   number of tips on possible terrorists.

                   The Bush administration's long-anticipated plans for the
                   military trials for terrorism suspects were presented to
                   Congress yesterday, and Defense Secretary Donald
                   Rumsfeld is expected to announce them today.

                   The plan to hold tribunals came under fierce criticism
                   when President George W. Bush announced it in
                   November as a means to try suspected al-Qaida
                   terrorists outside the U.S. federal court system,
                   especially in cases where national security information
                   might be divulged. Critics feared the tribunals would
                   short-circuit due process, denying suspects a public
                   trial, independent counsel, the right to hear evidence
                   against them and the ability to appeal their verdicts.

                   The new rules appear designed to address many of the
                   sharpest criticisms, international law experts said
                   yesterday, by modeling the tribunals after military
                   courts-martial and adding widely accepted legal
                   protections.

                   Bush said yesterday that he had "nobody in mind" to bring before the tribunals
                   and stressed that they merely are an option for prosecuting terrorists. "We'll be
                   using the tribunals if, in the course of bringing somebody to justice, it would
                   jeopardize or compromise national security interests. So they're a tool," Bush
                   said.

                   U.S. officials have said they expect a very limited number of tribunals, perhaps no
                   more than a few dozen, and that they might not start until the fall. Bush said the
                   fates of many of the 300 detainees at Guantanamo Bay, where many of those
                   subject to tribunal might come from, remained unclear, though he said,
                   "Remember...the ones in Guantanamo Bay are killers. They are - they don't
                   share the same values we share."

                   The tribunals would be presided over by a panel of three to seven officers, as are
                   many courts-martial. Defendants would be presumed innocent, and the
                   government would have to prove guilt. The suspects also would be given free
                   military lawyers and could hire civilian lawyers as well.

                   But the rules also permit prosecutors to introduce hearsay or second-hand
                   evidence that would be kept out of normal trials, including such things as
                   documents found in the caves of Afghanistan whose origin might be unclear.

                   Several legal experts also said they were troubled by the limited right to appeals,
                   which would be heard by a three-member panel but still consist of military
                   officials. Rumsfeld or Bush would be the final arbiter of a defendant's sentence.
                   There is no explicit right granted to appeal to federal courts, as those tried by
                   courts-martial are allowed to do.

                   However, Scott Silliman, an international law expert at Duke University, said he
                   believed the new rules would largely satisfy other nations concerned about due
                   process, but only if the appeals panel did not function as a "rubber stamp."

                   Also yesterday, to the dismay of some immigrant groups, Attorney General John
                   Ashcroft announced that 3,000 more visitors to the United States, many from the
                   Mideast, would be asked to submit to interviews with terrorism investigators.

                   He said the original program started in November to try to interview nearly 5,000
                   visitors had provided valuable information "about the would-be terrorists in our
                   midst."

                   Ashcroft gave no specifics but released a report that listed six interviews that had
                   provided tips about possible terrorists. Only half the original group were actually
                   interviewed, either because they could not be located or they declined.

                   Some civil liberties lawyers criticized the extension of the program to people who
                   arrived in the United States more recently than the first group. Critics also said
                   some of those already questioned were arrested for immigration violations or, in a
                   few cases, criminal charges based on the interviews, though none of the charges
                   related to terrorism. Ashcroft's office said fewer than 20 of those interviewed were
                   arrested.

                   David Cole, a Georgetown University law professor, said, "There is absolutely no
                   evidence that it has been an effective measure when you compare the results that
                   have been obtained against the bad blood they have created with the
                   Arab-American community as a result of this program."

                   Imad Hamad, a leader of the large Arab community in Michigan, said that while
                   he had cooperated with the first phase, the extension "will create another
                   unnecessary form of intimidation and emotional pressure" on Arab-Americans.