1. Welcome! Please take a few seconds to create your free account to post threads, make some friends, remove a few ads while surfing and much more. ClutchFans has been bringing fans together to talk Houston Sports since 1996. Join us!

BBC: U.S Likely To Try Civilian Suspects In Secret Military Tribunal.

Discussion in 'BBS Hangout: Debate & Discussion' started by MacBeth, Jul 4, 2003.

  1. MacBeth

    MacBeth Member

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2002
    Messages:
    7,761
    Likes Received:
    2
    Last Updated: Friday, 4 July, 2003, 18:17 GMT 19:17 UK

    Britons to go on US terror trial


    Moazzam Begg was arrested in Pakistan last February
    Two Britons are among six al-Qaeda suspects due to face a military tribunal in the US, the BBC has learned.
    The two are Moazzam Begg, 35, from Sparkbrook, Birmingham, and Feroz Abbasi, 23, from Croydon, south London.

    They have been held for many months by the US, along with 680 other detainees, in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, without being sent for trial.

    But US President George W Bush has now ruled they and four other unnamed Guantanamo inmates can be tried by military tribunal.

    The tribunals have come under heavy criticism from human rights organisations. If they go ahead, they would probably be held in secret and could order the death penalty.

    Mr Begg's father Azmat said he feared his son, a father-of-four, would not get a fair hearing.


    "The trial will be military, the judge will be military and yet my son is a civilian. This is just not right," he said.

    "If the government or military are appointing people in the court, that is absolutely wrong. It should be an independent person."
    My son was never involved in al-Qaeda, he is a proper, family man

    Moazzam Begg's father Azmat


    Father's anguish

    Foreign Office minister Baroness Symons said that the government was concerned about the use of a military commission to try the men, as well as about the way the commission would operate.

    The Government will press America hard to satisfy concerns over access to lawyers, standards of evidence and appeals in the case of a guilty verdict, she said.

    Speaking on BBC Radio 4's The World At One, she said: "It is far preferable, if they are British citizens, for them to come to the UK to face justice here."

    But she said that the US decision appeared to have made this impossible.

    Mr Begg repeated his claims that his son was innocent and the victim of mistaken identity.

    "My son was never involved in al-Qaeda. He is a proper, family man."

    Fair trial concerns

    Stephen Jakobi, director of the British pressure group Fair Trials Abroad, also raised concerns about the hearings, which he said were being "fixed" to secure convictions.

    "The US Department of Defence will appoint the judges and prosecutors, control the defence and make up the rules of the trial.

    "It appears to have only one objective - to secure a conviction. The US Department of Defence will appoint the judges and prosecutors, control the defence and make up the rules of the trial

    Stephen Jakobi, Fair Trials Abroad


    "If they were prepared to take these people to American soil and try them under normal US prosecution, the evidence wouldn't stand up," he said.

    Amnesty International too expressed alarm at the "second-class form of justice" which "falls short of international standards".

    BBC security correspondent Frank Gardner said some aspects of such a tribunal would be "extremely worrying".

    "It will almost certainly be held in secret, probably at Guantanamo Bay, and the really worrying thing is that there are reports... that an execution chamber is being built alongside it."

    However, any execution order would have to be upheld by Mr Bush, he said, and the UK - which is against the death penalty - would protest strongly.

    Draft charges

    Mr Begg was arrested by the CIA in Pakistan in February 2002, before being flown to Afghanistan and then Guantanamo Bay.




    Feroz Abbasi: From student to terror suspect
    Mr Abbasi was said to have been captured in Kunduz, Afghanistan, in late 2001.

    Pentagon officials say all six suspects are believed to be either members of the al-Qaeda terrorist network or have other terrorist involvement such as training or fund-raising.

    The next step is for the US authorities to draft charges against any or all of the six, and then make a decision on whether they will actually be tried.


    There are seven other Britons in Guantanamo Bay, according to a recent Foreign Office statement. They are:

    Shafiq Rasul, 24, of Tipton, West Midlands

    Asif Iqbal, 20, also of Tipton

    Ruhal Ahmed, 20, also of Tipton

    Martin Mubanga, 29, from north London

    Jamal Udeen, 35, from Manchester

    Richard Belmar, 23, from London

    Tarek Dergoul, 24, from east London.
     
  2. MacBeth

    MacBeth Member

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2002
    Messages:
    7,761
    Likes Received:
    2
    As a follow up, this is the lead story in the U.K. right now, and I just saw an interview with the former White House Legal Council, who defended the decision of the US to try civilians under a military tribunal in the face of UK and global anger by stating that " In a civilian trial, the burden of proof is such that these people would likely get off, or at least it would be a lot more likely. There are too many technicalities."

    I kid you not.
     
  3. DCkid

    DCkid Member

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2001
    Messages:
    9,661
    Likes Received:
    2,706
    Well, you definitely cannot let suspected terrorists get off on technicalities like so many other criminals in America. Then again, the military tribunal doesn't sound fair either. Are these really the only two options?
     
    #3 DCkid, Jul 5, 2003
    Last edited: Jul 5, 2003
  4. FranchiseBlade

    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2002
    Messages:
    51,804
    Likes Received:
    20,462
    If only it wasn't for that pesky rule of law.
     
  5. johnheath

    johnheath Member

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2003
    Messages:
    1,410
    Likes Received:
    0
    The concept "rule of law" supports the government's stance in this case. We have different standards in our judicial system for enemy combatants, and I don't think anybody here would suggest that they be given the same rights as American citizens.

    This thread is about offering complaints, without offering solutions.
     
  6. FranchiseBlade

    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2002
    Messages:
    51,804
    Likes Received:
    20,462
    I don't have a problem with military tribunals in some cases.

    You claim that the rule of law is what's being used here. Yet the rule of law in military tribunals was never to be used when you didn't have a strong enough case to proceed with a civilian proceeding. That's what the quote that MacBeth listed is basically saying.
     
  7. johnheath

    johnheath Member

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2003
    Messages:
    1,410
    Likes Received:
    0
    I disagree. I am not a lawyer, but my reading about military tribunals tells me that there is a big difference in the way evidence can be presented. The discovery process results in most cases being thrown out on technicalities, and therein lies the difference between military tribunals and U.S. civilian courts.

    With this in mind, the quote MacBeth used isn't damning AT ALL, and the "rule of law" is not threatened by these military tribunals.
     
  8. MacBeth

    MacBeth Member

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2002
    Messages:
    7,761
    Likes Received:
    2
    What scares me more is that the guilt seems predetermined, and the process is considered only from the point of view of ensuring that outcome, not from determining the guilt or innocence based on the facts. That is the domain of the courts, not the investigators.

    Secondly, and this wasn't a point I came up with, but the BBC anchorwoman, if we do this now, citing being in a confilct as reason why we can deviate from our path ( ie past terrorists were tried in civilian court) then what is to stop other nations from doing the same whenever they want? The BBC woman called it a mandate for autocracy, or some such thing...will try to remember specific phrase...
     
  9. johnheath

    johnheath Member

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2003
    Messages:
    1,410
    Likes Received:
    0
    We are all scared of the unknown.

    Do yourself a favor. Read about military tribunals, and how they differ from our civilian courts. Educating yourself about this process will quell your hysteria considerably.
     
  10. treeman

    treeman Member

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 1999
    Messages:
    7,146
    Likes Received:
    261
    Boo-hoo. Waaaahh! What a rape of the foundations of the system of rule of law! Atrocious!

    You guys think that a military tribunal is three guys with stars on their collars sitting in a dank cellar at a big table across from the beaten, tortured defendant, who rubber-stamp a guilty verdict followed by a trip in front of a firing squad.

    All it is is a trial in a military court with three judges. All of the rules used are drawn from the same foundations that our civil courts draw theirs from, with all of the same relevant protections. The main difference is that the process is streamlined in that the judges don't have to listen to endless BS pleas from the defense which have no obvious basis in reality, unlike our civil courts. All of the evidence that would be heard in a civilian court will be heard, and - unlike in a civil court - those pieces which are obviously false or ridiculous will be thrown out on the first try, and not after two years of dispute.

    And they won't get ten years' worth of appeals. Nor, BTW, will they be likely to get the death penalty.

    If they are guilty, then they will be found guilty - just as they would in a civilian court - it just won't take 5 years to do it, and any sensitive evidence that could be used by our enemies to attack us will not be revealed to the public. And if they are innocent then they will be found innocent - just as they would in a civilian court - it just won't take 5 years to do it, and any sensitive evidence that could be used by our enemies to attack us will be neither revealed nor relevant.

    Military tribunals are not your average kangaroo court. They are just as fair and thorough as our ideal of civil courts are, they are simply more efficient and more sensitive to sensitive issues than we are used to.

    The Brits can just suck their thumbs on this one.
     
  11. outlaw

    outlaw Member

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 1999
    Messages:
    4,496
    Likes Received:
    3
    aren't military courts the opposite of civilian ones since the burden of proof is with the defense (ie guilty until proven innocent)? they're not even allowing these people to meet with their lawyers from my understanding.
     
  12. treeman

    treeman Member

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 1999
    Messages:
    7,146
    Likes Received:
    261
    They should be allowed to meet with their lawyers in due time, they will certainly be given enough time to prepare their defense. Now, if the military tries to prevent them from meeting with defense lawyers, then you guys are right - something stinks here. But I wouldn't worry...

    The Pentagon will issue them some lawyers.
     
  13. johnheath

    johnheath Member

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2003
    Messages:
    1,410
    Likes Received:
    0
    Outlaw, the defendents are innocent until proven guilty, beyond a reasonable doubt.

    Treeman, I think, might be wrong about the 3 judges. I have read twice that there will be 7 judges.
     
  14. treeman

    treeman Member

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 1999
    Messages:
    7,146
    Likes Received:
    261
    3, 5, 7 - who cares. Tradition holds for three judges (hence the 'tri' in 'tribunal'), but it doesn't really matter. Instead of having 12 uninformed yahoos who were selected solely based upon their predisposed biases you've got a number of professional judges (these guys are not just any hand-picked generals, they are all students of law) to decide fate. I'll take that over a dozen yahoos who just want to leave - or worse yet, stay - any day.

    ;)
     
  15. Vik

    Vik Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2001
    Messages:
    217
    Likes Received:
    21
    In response to johnheath's message about "reasonable doubt" applying in military courts as well, I believe he's a bit mistaken. Here is a nice article which explains a few distinctions between civillian and military courts.

    Personally, I think the greatest drawback to the military court is the relative lack of credibility compared to civillian courts.



    USA: Legal experts question Sept. 11 military courts

    Sue Pleming

    Reuters English News Service©
    Wednesday, November 14, 2001

    WASHINGTON, Nov 14 (Reuters) - The use of special military courts to try foreigners accused in the Sept. 11 attacks may be a "quick fix" in bringing suspects to trial but will deny defendants many of the protections of U.S. criminal courts, said legal experts on Wednesday.

    In a legal tool last used in World War Two, President George W. Bush signed an executive order on Tuesday declaring that foreigners arrested on terrorism charges could be tried in any place or time by military courts, which are often secret.
    "What I fear is that the rest of the world will look at it and say these military courts are not courts of justice but courts of vengeance," said Irwin Schwartz, president of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers.

    "The trials will be a formality preceding execution," he added. Penalties under the order include death, which is opposed by many key U.S. allies.

    Vice President Dick Cheney defended the president's order, telling a Chamber of Commerce meeting that foreigners who came into the United States illegally with the aim of killing thousands, such as on Sept. 11, were not lawful combatants.

    "They don't deserve to be treated as a prisoner of war and they do not deserve the same guarantees and safeguards that would be used for an American citizen going through the normal judicial process," said Cheney.

    He said those tried in military courts would be given a fair trial, adding that there was legal precedence such as in World War Two when German saboteurs were tried by a military commission and in the case of those accused of assassinating Abraham Lincoln.

    The order specified that anyone detained would be "treated humanely without any adverse distinction based on race, color, religion, gender, birth, wealth or any similar criteria, and afforded adequate food, water, shelter, clothing and medical treatment."

    Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle voiced "constitutional concerns" over Bush's order and said he wanted to take a look at all of the legal implications before judging its merits.

    "I have some concerns for the constitutional protections that we have always afforded everybody," he told reporters.

    PRACTICAL SOLUTION

    Legal experts are divided over the use of a military court but all agree that they will lead to fewer protections for defendants tried in those tribunals.

    Paul Williams, professor of law and international relations at American University, said a military court was probably the most practical solution for trying those behind the Sept. 11 attacks in which hijacked planes were rammed into landmark buildings, killing more than 4,500 people.

    "It's a quick fix. Military tribunals are not the highest level of fairness or due process but I believe they will have sufficient due process," said Williams. "What President Bush is trying to do is avoid legal gridlock."

    Yale law professor Ruth Wedgwood, who is currently at the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies in Washington, said one advantage of a military court would be to prevent key intelligence from being given to the
    enemy.

    "You are not disclosing to the adversary what you know," she said, adding this was particularly important when dealing with such a powerful enemy as Osama bin Laden and his al Qaeda network, the chief suspects for the Sept. 11
    attacks.

    Outlining how the military courts would work, Eugene Fidell, president of the National Institute of Military Justice, said they would consist of a panel chosen by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, probably with White House
    approval.

    "There is less in the cup," said Fidell, when describing the legal protections offered to defendants.

    In a criminal court, the burden of proof must be beyond a reasonable doubt while Bush's executive order does not specify this, he said. In civil society, a jury's verdict must be unanimous, opposed to the two-thirds required by the military panel in Bush's order.

    FEWER PROTECTIONS

    In addition, the usual strict rules of evidence, including the exclusion of here-say, would not apply and evidence could be submitted if it was shown to have "probative value to a reasonable person."

    There is also no provision for appeals and the only review may be by the president or the defense secretary.

    "It is certain that these defendants will try to get into the federal district courts and how far they get remains to be seen," predicted Fidell.

    Schwartz pointed out that previous terrorism trials, such as those involving people accused of bombing U.S. embassies in Africa, were held in New York and the accused were tried and convicted by civilian juries.

    Several legal experts said an international court such as those used for war crimes committed in Rwanda and former Yugoslavia could be the ideal legal tool to deal with Sept. 11 cases but others said it would take too long to set up and that foreign judges could be subject to pressures and intimidation.

    But Schwartz disagreed: "It is so much more credible and advances the rule of law so much more to have an international court," he said.

    NACDL is the preeminent organization in the United States advancing the mission of the nation's criminal defense lawyers to ensure justice and due process for persons accused of crime or other misconduct. A professional bar association founded in 1958, NACDL's more than 10,000 direct members -- and 80 state and local affiliate organizations with another 28,000 members -- include private criminal defense lawyers, public defenders, active U.S. military defense counsel, law professors and judges committed to preserving fairness within America's criminal justice system.
     
  16. johnheath

    johnheath Member

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2003
    Messages:
    1,410
    Likes Received:
    0
    Vik, the author of your article did all that research and failed to find out the actual burden of proof used in these trials?

    LOL, I wonder why?

    hint- the burden of proof WILL be "beyond a reasonable doubt", but to write that in his article would make the US military tribunal seem a bit too fair.
     
  17. Vik

    Vik Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2001
    Messages:
    217
    Likes Received:
    21
    johnheath,

    Perhaps I should clarify. There is without question a lower burden of proof required for conviction in a military tribunal. See this Post article at http://www-tech.mit.edu/V121/N61/tribunals61.61w.html (or maybe look at the text of one of the supreme court decisions in In Re Quinn I believe, but I'm far from positive). There are also plenty of other articles and essays showing a reduced burden of proof.

    Now the minimum requirement for a conviction in a civilian court is proof beyond a reasonable doubt (I'm sure you'll agree with me), and the requirements for conviction in a military tribunal are less stringent, thus it follows that the "reasonable doubt" measure does not hold in the military tribunal. Instead there is some standard that is decided upon either by the judges sitting on the bench or by the President that signs the executive order calling for the tribunal.

    In regards to the "guilty until proven innocent" misconception, while it is true that innocence is still presumed in this military tribunal, there have been cases of US military tribunals presuming guilt. You should look at the first Dachau Military Tribunal towards the end of WWII. In that instance, suspected Nazi War Criminals were presumed guilty until proven innocent.

    I'm not saying that these tribunals will presume guilt, I'm just saying that there is some precedent for that having happened. I realize that this is far from a Nazi Germany type situation, so I'm not too worried about that. What IS quite clear is that the rights of defendents will be encroached upon severely by this tribunal since, among other things, there is a far lesser burden of proof required by the government to convict.
     

Share This Page

  • About ClutchFans

    Since 1996, ClutchFans has been loud and proud covering the Houston Rockets, helping set an industry standard for team fan sites. The forums have been a home for Houston sports fans as well as basketball fanatics around the globe.

  • Support ClutchFans!

    If you find that ClutchFans is a valuable resource for you, please consider becoming a Supporting Member. Supporting Members can upload photos and attachments directly to their posts, customize their user title and more. Gold Supporters see zero ads!


    Upgrade Now