FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

Military Commissions, Round Three

by JOANNE MARINER

Politicians normally like to be praised, but I have to wonder how President Obama feels having gotten accolades from such unaccustomed sources as Ari Fleischer, John McCain and the Wall Street Journal.

As a presidential candidate, Obama rightly called the military commissions at Guantanamo “an enormous failure.” On his second day in office, he suspended the commissions for 120 days and announced plans to close the detention center at Guantanamo within a year.

But this month, the Obama administration announced that it would resume trials of Guantanamo detainees by military commissions, albeit under new rules that would offer defendants greater legal protections. The additional rules prohibit the introduction of evidence obtained through cruel treatment, tighten the rules on hearsay evidence, and allow detainees greater choice in selecting defense lawyers. While the revised commissions improve somewhat on the model used by the Bush administration, they still fall far short of providing the due process guarantees found in U.S. federal courts.

Unsurprisingly, Republicans are jubilant. Portraying Obama’s reversal as a belated embrace of the Bush administration’s war on terror, their tone is unabashedly triumphant.

“With some minor changes, he really is following the same path President Bush pursued,” declared Fleischer. “He has now decided to preserve a tribunal process that will be identical in every material way to the one favored by Dick Cheney,” crowed the Wall Street Journal.

This is not change we can believe in.

Military Commissions So Far

The Obama tribunals will be round three in what has been a long, ad hoc, and entirely unnecessary process. The first set of post-9/11 commissions, established by executive order in 2001, were struck down by the Supreme Court in the 2006 case of Hamdan v. Rumsfeld. Congress reinstituted the system via the Military Commissions Act of 2006, and the commissions obtained their first conviction (by guilty plea) in March 2007.

David Hicks, an Australian former kangaroo skinner, served nine months of a seven-year suspended sentence, most of which was spent in his home country. He is now a free man.

Military commission charges are currently pending against 20 defendants, but only two other defendants have been convicted by the commissions: Salim Hamdan, Osama bin Laden’s former driver, and Ali Hamza al-Bahlul, bin Laden’s self-proclaimed media secretary. Hamdan was sentenced to five-and-a-half years of imprisonment, but was granted 61 months’ credit for time served and is now free in his native Yemen. Al-Bahlul was sentenced to life in prison after refusing to mount a defense.

While none of the detainees tried before the commissions have been acquitted, Hamdan was found not guilty of some of the most serious charges against him.

Tinkering with the Bush Model

The proposed changes to the military commissions are improvements, but they tinker with the basic model rather than repudiate it. Notably, the very purpose of the commissions was to permit trials that would not be bound by the due process protections available to defendants in federal courts, and this remains true today.

An inherent problem with the commissions is their lack of independence. Being part of the larger military structure, they are vulnerable to improper executive branch influence and control.

Another issue of concern is the commissions’ continued reliance on hearsay evidence. Although some defenders of the commissions have pointed to international tribunals’ relatively permissive rules on hearsay, a crucial distinction is that the triers of fact in such tribunals are judges – who know to properly discount the weight of hearsay – not laypersons, who do not.

The previous set of military commissions was beset with problems that resulted from starting a system from scratch. Defendants and their legal counsel could never be confident about the rules of procedure, which were ad hoc and untested, making the preparation of a defense difficult. For instance, the system in place to provide discovery to defendants left defense counsel without access to critical – and in some cases possibly exculpatory – evidence. Many issues were subject to legal challenge, resulting in long and unnecessary delays.

The U.S. federal courts, by contrast, have procedures that have already withstood years of litigation. And although critics assert that trials in U.S. courts would jeopardize national security by exposing sensitive intelligence information, the courts have carefully crafted rules to protect sensitive information from becoming public.

The federal court system also has a long history of providing fair trials in difficult cases. Sheikh Omar Abdel-Rahman, implicated in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, and Zacarias Moussaoui, implicated in the 9/11 attacks, were both tried and convicted in the federal courts. During the seven-year period when military commissions prosecuted three terrorism suspects, the federal courts tried more than 145 terrorism cases.

Even if the revived military commissions are improved dramatically, they will be deeply tainted by the moral and political baggage of the old commissions. The unhappy history of the commissions virtually guarantees that, in future trials, the unfairness of the proceedings will distract from the gravity of the crimes being adjudicated.

Preventive Detention?

All in all, defenders of the Bush administration’s misguided counterterrorism policies have good reason to exult. Yet liberals who refuse to be discouraged might perceive at least one possible silver lining in President Obama’s decision to rely on the commissions. Because of the commissions’ looser rules, the Department of Justice may end up prosecuting people before the commissions whom they would not have tried to prosecute in the federal courts. Importantly, this could mean that fewer people end up in a purported “third category” of detainee — those who are said to be impossible to prosecute but too dangerous to release, and who might face indefinite preventive detention.

Reinstating military commissions is a terrible misstep, but continuing the Bush administration’s policy of detention without trial would be worse. Let’s hope the Wall Street Journal never gets the chance to commend Obama for that.

JOANNE MARINER is a human rights lawyer living in Paris.

JOANNE MARINER is a human rights lawyer living in New York and Paris.

More articles by:
June 30, 2016
Richard Moser
Clinton and Trump, Fear and Fascism
Pepe Escobar
The Three Harpies are Back!
Ramzy Baroud
Searching for a ‘Responsible Adult’: ‘Is Brexit Good for Israel?’
Dave Lindorff
What is Bernie Up To?
Thomas Barker
Saving Labour From Blairism: the Dangers of Confining the Debate to Existing Members
Jan Oberg
Why is NATO So Irrational Today?
John Stauber
The Debate We Need: Gary Johnson vs Jill Stein
Steve Horn
Obama Administration Approved Over 1,500 Offshore Fracking Permits
Rob Hager
Supreme Court Legalizes Influence Peddling: McDonnell v. United States
Norman Pollack
Economic Nationalism vs. Globalization: Janus-Faced Monopoly Capital
Binoy Kampmark
Railroaded by the Supreme Court: the US Problem with Immigration
Howard Lisnoff
Of Kiddie Crusades and Disregarding the First Amendment in a Public Space
Vijay Prashad
Economic Liberalization Ignores India’s Rural Misery
Caroline Hurley
We Are All Syrians
June 29, 2016
Diana Johnstone
European Unification Divides Europeans: How Forcing People Together Tears Them Apart
Andrew Smolski
To My Less-Evilism Haters: A Rejoinder to Halle and Chomsky
Jeffrey St. Clair
Noam Chomsky, John Halle and a Confederacy of Lampreys: a Note on Lesser Evil Voting
David Rosen
Birth-Control Wars: Two Centuries of Struggle
Sheldon Richman
Brexit: What Kind of Dependence Now?
Yves Engler
“Canadian” Corporate Capitalism
Lawrence Davidson
Return to the Gilded Age: Paul Ryan’s Deregulated Dystopia
Priti Gulati Cox
All That Glitters is Feardom: Whatever Happens, Don’t Blame Jill Stein
Franklin Lamb
About the Accusation that Syrian and Russian Troops are Looting Palmyra
Binoy Kampmark
Texas, Abortion and the US Supreme Court
Anhvinh Doanvo
Justice Thomas’s Abortion Dissent Tolerates Discrimination
Victor Grossman
Brexit Pro and Con: the View From Germany
Manuel E. Yepe
Brazil: the Southern Giant Will Have to Fight
Rivera Sun
The Nonviolent History of American Independence
Adjoa Agyeiwaa
Is Western Aid Destroying Nigeria’s Future?
Jesse Jackson
What Clinton Should Learn From Brexit
Mel Gurtov
Is Brexit the End of the World?
June 28, 2016
Jonathan Cook
The Neoliberal Prison: Brexit Hysteria and the Liberal Mind
Paul Street
Bernie, Bakken, and Electoral Delusion: Letting Rich Guys Ruin Iowa and the World
Anthony DiMaggio
Fatally Flawed: the Bi-Partisan Travesty of American Health Care Reform
Mike King
The “Free State of Jones” in Trump’s America: Freedom Beyond White Imagination
Antonis Vradis
Stop Shedding Tears for the EU Monster: Brexit, the View From the Peloponnese
Omar Kassem
The End of the Atlantic Project: Slamming the Brakes on the Neoliberal Order
Binoy Kampmark
Brexit and the Neoliberal Revolt Against Jeremy Corbyn
Doug Johnson Hatlem
Alabama Democratic Primary Proves New York Times’ Nate Cohn Wrong about Exit Polling
Ruth Hopkins
Save Bear Butte: Mecca of the Lakota
Celestino Gusmao
Time to End Impunity for Suharto’’s Crimes in Indonesia and Timor-Leste
Thomas Knapp
SCOTUS: Amply Serving Law Enforcement’s Interests versus Society’s
Manuel E. Yepe
Capitalism is the Opposite of Democracy
Winslow Myers
Up Against the Wall
Chris Ernesto
Bernie’s “Political Revolution” = Vote for Clinton and the Neocons
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail