In This Article
Subscribe to Politics Updates
Former Gitmo Prosecutor Calls Tribunals Unfair
February 24, 2008 12:05 AM
by
findingDulcinea Staff
A former Guantanamo prosecutor doubts whether the terrorist suspects charged with planning 9/11 will receive a fair trial.
30-Second Summary
According to Col. Morris Davis, former chief prosecutor for the Guantanamo military commissions, the upcoming trials of six suspected terrorists charged with orchestrating the Sept. 11 attacks have been manipulated to rule out the possibility of acquittals.
Davis resigned from his post in October, citing political pressure and the appointment of Pentagon General Counsel William Haynes to oversee the tribunals’ work.
According to a Dec. 10 op-ed Davis wrote for the Los Angeles Times, Haynes’ involvement casts “a shadow over the integrity of military commissions” because he supports the use of evidence obtained through “aggressive interrogation techniques” such as waterboarding.
In a February 2008 interview with The Nation magazine, Davis said that Haynes had told him in 2005 that the military trials “can't have acquittals. We’ve got to have convictions.”
According to Scott Horton, a Columbia University law professor, the general counsel has tried to sideline critics of the Bush administration’s support for “extreme interrogation techniques.” Thinkprogress.org calls Haynes a “forceful advocate and key architect” of the use of torture.
Brig. Gen. Thomas W. Hartmann, a Defense Department legal adviser, wrote to the Los Angeles Times to support Haynes. He denied Davis’ accusations of political pressure and argued that the United States grants “unprecedented rights to alleged war criminals.”
Commenting on Hartmann’s op-ed, law professor Amos Guiora writes that calling the detainees “war criminals” is problematic, and that Hartmann had failed to address the most important topic Davis raised—the use of illegally obtained evidence.
The legality of both the tribunal system and the detention of suspected terrorists at Guantanamo Bay have been challenged in U.S. courts.
However, the Bush administration and its supporters have argued that the nature of the terrorist threat justifies special measures, and that the Guantanamo tribunal system complies with U.S. law.
Davis resigned from his post in October, citing political pressure and the appointment of Pentagon General Counsel William Haynes to oversee the tribunals’ work.
According to a Dec. 10 op-ed Davis wrote for the Los Angeles Times, Haynes’ involvement casts “a shadow over the integrity of military commissions” because he supports the use of evidence obtained through “aggressive interrogation techniques” such as waterboarding.
In a February 2008 interview with The Nation magazine, Davis said that Haynes had told him in 2005 that the military trials “can't have acquittals. We’ve got to have convictions.”
According to Scott Horton, a Columbia University law professor, the general counsel has tried to sideline critics of the Bush administration’s support for “extreme interrogation techniques.” Thinkprogress.org calls Haynes a “forceful advocate and key architect” of the use of torture.
Brig. Gen. Thomas W. Hartmann, a Defense Department legal adviser, wrote to the Los Angeles Times to support Haynes. He denied Davis’ accusations of political pressure and argued that the United States grants “unprecedented rights to alleged war criminals.”
Commenting on Hartmann’s op-ed, law professor Amos Guiora writes that calling the detainees “war criminals” is problematic, and that Hartmann had failed to address the most important topic Davis raised—the use of illegally obtained evidence.
The legality of both the tribunal system and the detention of suspected terrorists at Guantanamo Bay have been challenged in U.S. courts.
However, the Bush administration and its supporters have argued that the nature of the terrorist threat justifies special measures, and that the Guantanamo tribunal system complies with U.S. law.
Headline Links: Former chief prosecutor criticizes tribunals, superiors
Col. Morris D. Davis explains why he resigned from his post as chief prosecutor of the Guantanamo military commissions in an op-ed in the Los Angeles Times. He said that part of the reason for his resignation was the involvement of Pentagon general counsel William Haynes, a man who supports the use of harsh interrogation techniques. He said political appointments and biased attorneys would compromise the work of the tribunals.
Source: Los Angeles Times
In an interview with The Nation, Davis claims that Haynes has openly expressed his determination to win convictions in the upcoming military trials, refusing the possibility of acquittals.
Source: The Nation
Background: ‘Prosecutors Seek Death Penalty for Terror Suspects’
Military prosecutors will demand the death penalty for the six high-profile Guantanamo detainees being charged with planning the Sept. 11 attacks. But critics question the legality of the military court that will try them.
Source: findingDulcinea
Reactions: The Defense Department attorney
Brig. Gen. Thomas W. Hartmann, a Defense Department legal adviser, responded to Col. Davis’ op-ed in the Los Angeles Times. Hartmann wrote that there have not been any political appointments, and that no pressure has been exerted on Davis by Defense Department officials. He added that the trials will not be secret and that “the process offers unprecedented rights to alleged war criminals.”
Source: Los Angeles Times
Opinion & Analysis: The Guantanamo tribunals stir controversy
Thingprogress.org, which is affiliated with the Center for American Progress Action Fund, a self-described progressive think-tank, reports that in November Haynes barred a former Guantanamo prosecutor from testifying before a House judiciary committee on “the effectiveness and consequences of ‘enhanced’ interrogation." The prosecutor, Lt. Col. Stuart Couch, claimed in a Wall Street Journal profile from March 2007 that he had witnessed prisoners being tortured during his time at Guantanamo.
Source: Thinkprogress.org
In a national security law blog, University of Utah law professor Amos Guiora writes that Hartmann fails to address the most important issue raised by Davis—the use of evidence obtained through torture. He adds that Hartmann’s reference to Guantanamo detainees as “alleged war criminals” is problematic because the United States has not declared them “war criminals.”
Source: National Security Advisors
An op-ed in Investor’s Business Daily argues that the Guantanamo detainees are dangerous terrorists, contrary to what rights groups say.
Source: Investor’s Business Daily
For and against Guantanamo
Bruce Fein, a deputy attorney general under Ronald Reagan and current chairman of the American Freedom Agenda, spoke out against the Guantanamo military commissions and said the government’s policies amounted to the creation of a “police state.” However, says Andrew McCarthy, director of the Center for Law and Counterterrorism at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, “What is actually an aberration is having unlawful enemy combatants in wartime have access to the courts of the United States.”
Source: Cato
The Guantanamo military facility operates in accordance with U.S. law, says James Jay Carafano, senior research fellow at the Heritage Foundation. Carafano says the tribunal system ensures that inmates get their status reviewed periodically, and that they will be released if they do not pose a threat to the United States. Gabor Rona, international legal director at Human Rights First, disagrees and says that the detention and interrogation of Guantanamo inmates is unlawful.
Source: Council on Foreign Relations
Human Rights Watch has expressed concern over the Guantanamo military tribunals, saying they fall short of international and U.S. legal standards.
Source: Human Rights Watch
Reference: The tribunals
The detention of suspected terrorists at Guantanamo, and the constitutionality of the military commission set up to try them, have been repeatedly challenged in U.S. courts. In 2004, the Supreme Court ruled that “the White House does not have a ‘blank check’ to indefinitely hold and deny legal access to detainees who are U.S. citizens." In addition, a 2006 Supreme Court decision stated that the original Guantanamo military commission was in breach of U.S. military law, the laws of war and the Geneva Convention.
Source: Council on Foreign Relations
© 2010 Dulcinea Media, Inc.
