If you initially supported President Obama's vaguely explained proposal to adopt a modified system of military commissions, you will feel disappointed if you read this New York Times
new article by William Glaberson.
Consider this paragraph:
As details of the plan emerged Monday, it was clear that military commission trials would be subject to new legal challenges raising many of the same issues that plagued the Bush administration’s effort to prosecute detainees for the last seven years.
So it turns out that one of the main flaws of Bush's system (the lengthy legal challenges which delayed and often derailed trials) would linger under this new proposal.
No wonder a Navy military lawyer told The Times, regarding the changes, “I don’t think it’s going to make much of a difference."
White House claim: "the accused will have greater latitude in selecting their counsel.”
New York Times' conclusion:
"The filing showed that the Obama administration had not made a substantial change in the restriction.
It said that a detainee would be permitted a lawyer “of the accused’s own choosing.” But it added that the requested lawyer must be assigned to the Pentagon’s office of military defense lawyers for Guantánamo."
This prompted an Air Force defense laywer to state that "several of the Obama administration’s alterations to the Bush administration’s system were what he called “minor cosmetic changes.”
White House proposed a change that "dealt with limiting hearsay evidence against prisoners."
New York Times' rebuttal:
"But the filing showed that military prosecutors would continue to rely extensively on hearsay evidence that might be barred in federal court."
Administration officials vowed to bring this issue to congress to apply more changes, and that these initial changes are simply a starting point.
A terrible starting point, I would add.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(225 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
