hey, remind me again why impeachment is off the table?
Hamdi, Rasul, and CSRT -- Show Trials for the 21st Century
A Rant by Macha
[Read the Seton Hall law school summary .pdf]
So what's my problem this time? Who remembers that amusing argument by Bush and his Torture!Rocks Attorneys General that we can toss suspected terrorists -- sorry, enemy combatants -- in the clink and throw away the key because: we can imprison enemy combatants for as long as the war on terrorism continues without trial [plus] Bush says they're combatants [equals] the guys in Guantanamo can't challenge their status as enemy combatants (per Bush) because they're enemy combatants (per Bush)?
Mmmm, tautology! Deliciously stupid! And, you know, totally unconstitutional. Whee!
Well, those mean old Activist Judges on the Supreme Court actually dared tell Bush that, um, you can't just unilaterally declare someone to be a certain imprison-able legal status and then declare that such status cannot be challenged. So those plucky Torture!Rocks Attorneys General and Rummy's DoD guys cooked up these Combat Status Review Trial ("CSRT") and ran a bunch of Guantanamo "detainees" (because we are still carefully avoiding the term "POW" and its attendant minimum legal requirements for treatment) through the process and we're all done with that, right?
Only no. Because of stuff like this: In three of the 102 CSRT returns reviewed, the Tribunal found the detainee to be not/no-longer an enemy combatant. In each case, the Defense Department ordered a new Tribunal convened, and the detainee was then found to be an enemy combatant. In one instance, a detainee was found to no longer be an enemy combatant by two Tribunals, before a third Tribunal was convened which then found the detainee to be an enemy combatant.
Are you fucking KIDDING ME WITH THIS?
The Seton Hall report is based exclusively on Defense Department documents* [::pets FOIA::], so it's not like some EVOL TERRRRST got out of Guantanamo to spread his vicious America-hating lies because he's jealous of our freedoms. Because I'm still all atwitter with ANGER ANGER ANGER, I will let the review's brilliantly understated summation provide the conclusion:
The results of this review are startling. The process that was promised was modest at best. The process that was actually provided was far less than the written procedures appear to require.
To drive home the point, every single detainee was declared an enemy combatant,** whether that declaration took one, two, or three CSRT "hearings." I can't even articulate how fucked up that is, but let's hit the highlights:
Seriously. This isn't a trial. It isn't a hearing. It sure as FUCK ain't a fact-finding process.
What pisses me off is that illegal and immoral shit like this gets NO PLAY in the media because 1. it's complicated; and 2. they're all probably terrorists anyway, so why should I worry my pretty little head about it? OMGWTF. This logic is EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE of our justice system. And, yes, I understand that we don't have to supply non-citizens with access to OUR justice system, but if we all agree that, despite its flaws, our justice system is pretty darn good and provides protections against wrongful imprisonment, what's the argument AGAINST using our existing justice system for these tribunals?
Leaving that aside, the Supreme Court in Rasul said that these detainees cannot be held indefinitely without habeas relief to challenge their status and, consequently, their detainment. These CSRT don't come CLOSE to actually providing habeas relief. They simply allow the government to say, "here's a summation of all the Bad Stuff this guy did, but we can't give you details, and this is persuasive, so we won't bother with witnesses, and, oh, this guy doesn't have witnesses or evidence to support his claim, so we win, right? Put him back in his cell. Next case, please!"
That's a fucking disgrace.
*This Report analyzes the CSRT proceedings, comparing the hearing process that the detainees were promised with the process actually provided. The Report is based on the records that the United States Government has produced for 393 of the 558 detainees who had CSRT hearings.
**The report covers only the 102 full records provided by the DoD; out of the 558 total detainees who were given CSRT hearings, government records show that 38 were actually determined not to be enemy combatants. Please note that these detainees could've been in Guantanamo since 2002. FOUR YEARS.
A Rant by Macha
[Read the Seton Hall law school summary .pdf]
So what's my problem this time? Who remembers that amusing argument by Bush and his Torture!Rocks Attorneys General that we can toss suspected terrorists -- sorry, enemy combatants -- in the clink and throw away the key because: we can imprison enemy combatants for as long as the war on terrorism continues without trial [plus] Bush says they're combatants [equals] the guys in Guantanamo can't challenge their status as enemy combatants (per Bush) because they're enemy combatants (per Bush)?
Mmmm, tautology! Deliciously stupid! And, you know, totally unconstitutional. Whee!
Well, those mean old Activist Judges on the Supreme Court actually dared tell Bush that, um, you can't just unilaterally declare someone to be a certain imprison-able legal status and then declare that such status cannot be challenged. So those plucky Torture!Rocks Attorneys General and Rummy's DoD guys cooked up these Combat Status Review Trial ("CSRT") and ran a bunch of Guantanamo "detainees" (because we are still carefully avoiding the term "POW" and its attendant minimum legal requirements for treatment) through the process and we're all done with that, right?
Only no. Because of stuff like this: In three of the 102 CSRT returns reviewed, the Tribunal found the detainee to be not/no-longer an enemy combatant. In each case, the Defense Department ordered a new Tribunal convened, and the detainee was then found to be an enemy combatant. In one instance, a detainee was found to no longer be an enemy combatant by two Tribunals, before a third Tribunal was convened which then found the detainee to be an enemy combatant.
Are you fucking KIDDING ME WITH THIS?
The Seton Hall report is based exclusively on Defense Department documents* [::pets FOIA::], so it's not like some EVOL TERRRRST got out of Guantanamo to spread his vicious America-hating lies because he's jealous of our freedoms. Because I'm still all atwitter with ANGER ANGER ANGER, I will let the review's brilliantly understated summation provide the conclusion:
The results of this review are startling. The process that was promised was modest at best. The process that was actually provided was far less than the written procedures appear to require.
To drive home the point, every single detainee was declared an enemy combatant,** whether that declaration took one, two, or three CSRT "hearings." I can't even articulate how fucked up that is, but let's hit the highlights:
- The Government did not produce any witnesses in any hearing and did not present any documentary evidence to the detainee prior to the hearing in 96% of the cases. No witnesses, and the detainee has no access to evidence beforehand. Awesome! Sign me up for a trial like this! "Your Honor, no one saw me shoot anyone, and I don't even understand what's written in this report, because I don't speak Farsi, but I really didn't do anything wrong. You have to believe me." Totally fair.
- The only document that the detainee is always presented with is the summary of classified evidence, but the Tribunal characterized this summary before it as "conclusory" and not persuasive. WTF? The most BASIC TENET of judicial fairness is that the accused is permitted to confront the evidence against him, not a frickin' SUMMARY. "Ms. Wicket is known to have frequented the same organizations as known terrorist redacted redacted redacted." Yeah, I can adequately defend myself against that! Good thing its legal weight is fracking CONCLUSIVE instead of persuasive. WTF???
- In 48% of the cases, the Government also relied on unclassified evidence, but, like the classified evidence, this unclassified evidence was almost always withheld from the detainee. ::splutter:: That doesn't make a LICK of sense, as classified for national security reasons is the only valid, supportable reason to keep evidence from the damn accused. BASIC STUFF.
- All requests by detainees for witnesses not already detained in Guantánamo were denied. Requests by detainees for witnesses detained in Guantánamo were denied in 74% of the cases. OMFG. So you walk into your status trial after TWO YEARS of imprisonment, you're handed a document in another language that "summarizes" the government's case against you, and you realize that you most certainly WERE NOT THE FUCK in Afghanistan frolicking with Osama in June 2001, because you were enrolled in a Saudi Arabian university, and you want your former roommate to testify on your behalf... and you can't bring ANYONE WHO'S NOT ALREADY DETAINED WITH YOU??? Because I'm SO SURE the military tribunal will give SUBSTANTIAL WEIGHT to testimony by ANOTHER DETAINEE THAT THEY'VE ALREADY DETERMINED TO BE AN ENEMY COMBATANT. HOW does this make any sense in the goddamned world???
- Among detainees that participated, requests by detainees to produce documentary evidence were denied in 60% of the cases.... The only documentary evidence that the detainees were allowed to produce was from family and friends.... Who are obviously biased in favor o their jailed friend/family member. ::bangs head on desk:: So you can't subpoena your CLASS RECORDS FROM SAUDI ARABIAN U either????
- 89% of the time no evidence was presented on behalf of the detainee.... The Tribunal’s decision was made on the same day as the hearing in 81% of the cases. ::incoherent::
- Instead of a lawyer, the detainee was assigned a "personal representative," whose role, both in theory and practice, was minimal.... During the hearing; the personal representative did not make any substantive statements in 36% of the cases; and In the 52% of the cases where the personal representative did make substantive comments, those comments sometimes advocated for the Government. ::shakes head:: I can't even...
- When a detainee was initially found not/no-longer to be an enemy combatant: The detainee was not told of his favorable decision; There is no indication that the detainee was informed of or participated in the second (or third) hearings... ::head explodey::
Seriously. This isn't a trial. It isn't a hearing. It sure as FUCK ain't a fact-finding process.
What pisses me off is that illegal and immoral shit like this gets NO PLAY in the media because 1. it's complicated; and 2. they're all probably terrorists anyway, so why should I worry my pretty little head about it? OMGWTF. This logic is EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE of our justice system. And, yes, I understand that we don't have to supply non-citizens with access to OUR justice system, but if we all agree that, despite its flaws, our justice system is pretty darn good and provides protections against wrongful imprisonment, what's the argument AGAINST using our existing justice system for these tribunals?
Leaving that aside, the Supreme Court in Rasul said that these detainees cannot be held indefinitely without habeas relief to challenge their status and, consequently, their detainment. These CSRT don't come CLOSE to actually providing habeas relief. They simply allow the government to say, "here's a summation of all the Bad Stuff this guy did, but we can't give you details, and this is persuasive, so we won't bother with witnesses, and, oh, this guy doesn't have witnesses or evidence to support his claim, so we win, right? Put him back in his cell. Next case, please!"
That's a fucking disgrace.
*This Report analyzes the CSRT proceedings, comparing the hearing process that the detainees were promised with the process actually provided. The Report is based on the records that the United States Government has produced for 393 of the 558 detainees who had CSRT hearings.
**The report covers only the 102 full records provided by the DoD; out of the 558 total detainees who were given CSRT hearings, government records show that 38 were actually determined not to be enemy combatants. Please note that these detainees could've been in Guantanamo since 2002. FOUR YEARS.