Shameful Behavior At The Highest Levels
New Military Commissions Manual Allows Convictions On Hearsay, Coerced Evidence
It appears that the O.J. Simpson case set some precedents that we all were not aware of at the time. Apparently, after looking at the failures on the part of law enforcement, evidence collectors, criminalists, and prosecutors, the federal government decided that it would never trust the adversarial system of juris prudence we employ again. Instead, our fearless leaders have chosen to stack the decks against anyone that might be accused.
In a fashion more befitting the tests designed to assess whether a 16th century person was a witch, in league with the devil, or possessed by evil spirits, the rules of the military commission set up to hear cases for those accused and detained at Gitmo allow hearsay, coerced testimony, self-incrimination and, on top of all that, limited legal representation... and limited appeal proceedings.
We might as well hog tie the accused persons and toss them in the river to see if they float. If the float then they are guilty. But if they drown, then they were innocent. Or should we use the other tried but untrue method of burning them at the stake? If they burn they were innocent and all their sins will be forgiven.
One has to question the validity of the Commission from the gitgo. Is there going to be any chance of justice when the outcome is already rigged to be in favor of the prosecution? Are we seriously expecting the rest of the world to allow this injustice? Do we not think that the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights has something to say about this type of kangaroo court?
Did congress intend to give such wide latitude regarding the rules of evidence when it authorized the MCA? Or was it such a corrupt partisan process that congress was railroaded by the ultra-conservatives in the GOP? One has to question whether or not American citizens, American-trained lawyers, American military officers and American officials actually came up with these rules and procedures. Certainly no one that has taken an oath to support and defend the Constitution could see these rules and procedures as being in compliance with the principles and provisions of our supreme law of the land. No one that was in touch with any sense of decency, justice, fairness and legal precedent could find this approach as reasonable.
US Army Officer Barred From Disputing Legality Of Iraq War At Court-Martial
In yet another travesty of justice, the very core of 1st Lieutenant Ehren Watada's defense has been precluded from being exercised in a military courts martial. But indeed this is his best defense, if not his only defense. His oath as an officer is to support and defend the Constitution. If the orders given to him are not legally sound, then he has an affirmative duty not to follow those orders. Ordinarily, a member of the military is called to question any order that obviously violates our laws, the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) and/or the Constitution.
But if Watada is not allowed to bring the question of legality of the entire invasion of Iraq into question, he is essentially being denied an able defense. If I were his lawyer, I would immediately seek an appeal on this evidentiary ruling in limine. This would force the Supreme Court to take notice that once again the current administration is attempting to circumvent the protections provided by our Constitution.
As I have written in the past, I would ordinarily find Watada's refusal to report a cowardly act. However, in this case, under these circumstances, I find Watada's refusal to deploy to Iraq not only heroic and courageous, but the lawful thing to do. The war in Iraq is illegally being waged because it violates several international treaties signed and ratified by the United States of America. By virtue of the "supremacy clause," and the treaties clause contained therein, violating these treaties is tantamount to violating the Constitution... the supreme law of the land.
I think he has a case if he were allowed to present it. His offer to serve in Afghanistan, his refusal to take the easy way out by being classified as a conscientious objector, and his stance all speak to his integrity as a person, a soldier, an officer and as an American.
Prosecuting Watada without giving him the opportunity to present a defense that has the highest validity and the highest chance of winning is just plain un-American.
It appears that the O.J. Simpson case set some precedents that we all were not aware of at the time. Apparently, after looking at the failures on the part of law enforcement, evidence collectors, criminalists, and prosecutors, the federal government decided that it would never trust the adversarial system of juris prudence we employ again. Instead, our fearless leaders have chosen to stack the decks against anyone that might be accused.
In a fashion more befitting the tests designed to assess whether a 16th century person was a witch, in league with the devil, or possessed by evil spirits, the rules of the military commission set up to hear cases for those accused and detained at Gitmo allow hearsay, coerced testimony, self-incrimination and, on top of all that, limited legal representation... and limited appeal proceedings.
We might as well hog tie the accused persons and toss them in the river to see if they float. If the float then they are guilty. But if they drown, then they were innocent. Or should we use the other tried but untrue method of burning them at the stake? If they burn they were innocent and all their sins will be forgiven.
One has to question the validity of the Commission from the gitgo. Is there going to be any chance of justice when the outcome is already rigged to be in favor of the prosecution? Are we seriously expecting the rest of the world to allow this injustice? Do we not think that the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights has something to say about this type of kangaroo court?
Terror detainees may be convicted solely on hearsay or coerced evidence and defendants may not present classified evidence unless the government approves its use, according to the Manual for Military Commissions, released by the US Defense Department Thursday. The manual describes the procedures to govern upcoming detainee trials under the Military Commissions Act of 2006 (MCA).
Did congress intend to give such wide latitude regarding the rules of evidence when it authorized the MCA? Or was it such a corrupt partisan process that congress was railroaded by the ultra-conservatives in the GOP? One has to question whether or not American citizens, American-trained lawyers, American military officers and American officials actually came up with these rules and procedures. Certainly no one that has taken an oath to support and defend the Constitution could see these rules and procedures as being in compliance with the principles and provisions of our supreme law of the land. No one that was in touch with any sense of decency, justice, fairness and legal precedent could find this approach as reasonable.
US Army Officer Barred From Disputing Legality Of Iraq War At Court-Martial
In yet another travesty of justice, the very core of 1st Lieutenant Ehren Watada's defense has been precluded from being exercised in a military courts martial. But indeed this is his best defense, if not his only defense. His oath as an officer is to support and defend the Constitution. If the orders given to him are not legally sound, then he has an affirmative duty not to follow those orders. Ordinarily, a member of the military is called to question any order that obviously violates our laws, the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) and/or the Constitution.
But if Watada is not allowed to bring the question of legality of the entire invasion of Iraq into question, he is essentially being denied an able defense. If I were his lawyer, I would immediately seek an appeal on this evidentiary ruling in limine. This would force the Supreme Court to take notice that once again the current administration is attempting to circumvent the protections provided by our Constitution.
A US military judge ruled Tuesday that 1st Lt. Ehren Watada; JURIST news archive], a US Army officer who refused deployment to Iraq because he felt the war is 'unlawful,' cannot argue that point in his upcoming court-martial. Lt. Col. John Head further ruled that Watada may not raise a free speech defense, as soldiers do not enjoy the same constitutional rights as civilians. Watada was charged in July with missing troop movement, contempt toward officials, and multiple specifications of conduct unbecoming, before an investigating officer recommended proceeding with only the missing troop movement and conduct unbecoming charges, for which he faces a maximum sentence of six years. His court-martial is scheduled for February 5.
As I have written in the past, I would ordinarily find Watada's refusal to report a cowardly act. However, in this case, under these circumstances, I find Watada's refusal to deploy to Iraq not only heroic and courageous, but the lawful thing to do. The war in Iraq is illegally being waged because it violates several international treaties signed and ratified by the United States of America. By virtue of the "supremacy clause," and the treaties clause contained therein, violating these treaties is tantamount to violating the Constitution... the supreme law of the land.
Watada, a 28 year old from Honolulu, joined the Army in 2003 and has served in Korea. He refuses to be classified as a conscientious objector because he does not object to war in general, just to the "illegal" war in Iraq. He had offered to instead serve in Afghanistan, however the Army refused. Watada is the first commissioned officer in the US military to publicly refuse deployment to Iraq. His vocal protests and participation in rallies by Veterans for Peace [advocacy website] and Courage to Resist [advocacy website] led to the charges of conduct unbecoming an officer and the original charge of contempt toward officials.
I think he has a case if he were allowed to present it. His offer to serve in Afghanistan, his refusal to take the easy way out by being classified as a conscientious objector, and his stance all speak to his integrity as a person, a soldier, an officer and as an American.
Prosecuting Watada without giving him the opportunity to present a defense that has the highest validity and the highest chance of winning is just plain un-American.
posted by Jim Downey at 9:13 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home