Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Witness Names to Be Withheld From Guantanamo Detainee

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU
 
DeepModem Mom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 11:49 AM
Original message
Witness Names to Be Withheld From Guantanamo Detainee
Source: New York Times, Page One

By WILLIAM GLABERSON
Published: December 1, 2007

Defense lawyers preparing for the war crimes trial of a 21-year-old Guantánamo detainee have been ordered by a military judge not to tell their client — or anyone else — the identity of witnesses against him, newly released documents show. The case of the detainee, Omar Ahmed Khadr, is being closely watched because it may be the first Guantánamo prosecution to go to trial, perhaps as soon as May.

Defense lawyers say military prosecutors have sought similar orders to keep the names of witnesses secret in other military commission cases, which have been a centerpiece of the Bush administration’s policies for detainees at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba. Some legal experts and defense lawyers said the judge’s order, issued on Oct. 15 without public disclosure, underscored the gap between military commission procedures and traditional American rules that the accused has a right to a public trial and to confront the witnesses against him.

Defense lawyers say the order would hamper their ability to build an adequate defense because they cannot ask their client or anyone else about prosecution witnesses, making it difficult to test the veracity of testimony.

The order, the documents show, followed a request by military prosecutors who said they feared terrorist retaliation against witnesses who appeared at Guantánamo proceedings....

Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/01/us/nationalspecial3/01gitmo.html?_r=1&oref=slogin&ref=todayspaper&pagewanted=all
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Xipe Totec Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 11:52 AM
Response to Original message
1. I can't decide whether we're living in an Orwell, or a Kafka novel
but we're not in Kansas anymore, Toto.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
C_U_L8R Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 12:02 PM
Response to Reply #1
4. Kansas is looking a lot like East Germany
awful
shameful
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ck4829 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 11:53 AM
Response to Original message
2. Defense lawyers should respond by saying names of witnesses for the defense should be withheld too
Because you know what the Bush Administration does to people who oppose it, and if you don't know, then just ask Valerie Plame and Joe Wilson.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Solly Mack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 11:54 AM
Response to Original message
3. and the band played on
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gratuitous Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 12:11 PM
Response to Original message
5. I share some outdated language from a quaint old document
Amendment 6 - Right to Speedy Trial, Confrontation of Witnesses. Ratified 12/15/1791.

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

____________________________

I don't see any exceptions to "all criminal prosecutions." And the right to be confronted with the witnesses seems pretty absolute, too. But in Bush's America, where our governmental officials (from judges right down to the lowliest buck private in the military) are all pee-their-pants scared of, well, everything, the Sixth Amendment no longer applies.

What a shame our country has become.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kimmylavin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 12:21 PM
Response to Reply #5
6. That is quaint.
But we're in George Bush's Amerika now, gratuitous.

Those Founding Fathers?
About the only real contribution they made was some obscure reference to a creator that insured America would be a Christian nation. :sarcasm:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warren Stupidity Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 12:36 PM
Response to Original message
7. Sixth Amendment? What's that?
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

And for those who will claim that this only applies to 'citizens' or 'us persons' or other such nonsense: the wording in the constitution is pretty specific. When something applies to a specific subset of people, such as 'citizens' the document spells that out.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mmonk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 12:38 PM
Response to Original message
8. People can acquiece to this unAmerican totalitarian future
or they can join Amnesty International, The Center for Constitutional Rights, and other organizations and stop watching the permanent end of due process and founding principles. The choice is yours. I view these NGO's as democracy's only chance unless more democrats become democrats again instead of prostitutes to the same darkness as their protected counterparts, the republicans.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
struggle4progress Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 04:52 PM
Response to Original message
9. Great! If we ever start sending neo-cons to Guantanamo for trying
to destroy the United States, we won't have to tell them who the witnesses against them are
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cal04 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-02-07 10:07 AM
Response to Original message
10. Trial Witnesses Kept Secret at Gitmo
Source: Associated Press

A U.S. military judge has ordered attorneys for a Guantanamo detainee accused of killing a U.S. soldier not to reveal the identities of trial witnesses to anybody, including their Canadian-born client, according to recently released documents.

The ruling was issued in the case of Omar Khadr, 21, which could become the first to go to trial at the Guantanamo Bay Navy base in southeast Cuba as soon as the spring.

The law authorizing the first American war-crimes tribunals since the World War II era allows the use of classified evidence, and some parts of trials are expected to take place in closed courtrooms.

But Khadr's lead attorney, Navy Lt. Cmdr. William Kuebler, protested the order against revealing witnesses' identities, saying it will make it harder to investigate their claims and force him to keep secrets from his client.

Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071202/ap_on_re_la_am_ca/guantanamo_witnesses_2
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HuffleClaw Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-02-07 10:07 AM
Response to Reply #10
11. using TERRA! to casually toss away a basic tenet of jursiprudence?
how very typical of this administration and of course a simple admission that this will be little more than a show trial with a predetermined conclusion. Canada's price for not joining the 'coalition of the coerced'.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Robbien Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-02-07 10:07 AM
Response to Reply #10
12. Attorneys for Guantanamo detainee ordered to keep witnesses secret from client
Source: AP

SAN JUAN, Puerto Rico (AP) - A U.S. military judge has ordered attorneys for a Canadian-born Guantanamo detainee accused of killing a U.S. soldier not to

The law authorizing the first American war-crimes tribunals since the World War II-era allows the use of classified evidence, and some parts of trials are expected to take place in closed courtrooms.

But Khadr's lead attorney, Navy Lt. Cmdr. William Kuebler, protested the order against revealing witnesses' identities, saying it will make it harder to investigate their claims and force him to keep secrets from his client.
«It interferes with defense counsels' ability to form a relationship of trust and confidence with the accused,» Kuebler wrote to the judge, according to documents released by the Pentagon this week.

The judge, Army Col. Peter Brownback, issued the order Oct. 15 following a request by military prosecutors who argued witnesses should be protected from possible terrorist retaliation.

Read more: http://www.pr-inside.com/attorneys-for-guantanamo-detainee-ordered-r327373.htm
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lydia Leftcoast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-02-07 10:07 AM
Response to Reply #12
13. Here's a little detail the military prosecutors should review:
Amendment 6 - Right to Speedy Trial, Confrontation of Witnesses. Ratified 12/15/1791.

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

I know it's 18th-century English, but it seems pretty plain to me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HuffleClaw Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-02-07 10:08 AM
Response to Reply #12
14. sounds to me like an admission that the 'witnesses' are lacking credibility
wrapped in a 'TERRA' excuse, like so much else that the government tries to hide.

'hmmm. this might be embarrassing to the administration so its suddenly a 'state secret'
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Apr 25th 2024, 05:33 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC