H 23°, L 4° | Tomorrow: 
H 21°, L 6°Of all the detainees held at the Guantanamo Bay Naval Base detention center, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, deserves to be there more than most. He has been implicated in plotting a range of different attacks on U.S. targets, from the 1993 World Trade Center bombing to the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. Wednesday, the Pentagon released a transcript of the unclassified portion of the military tribunal currently dealing with Mohammed's case. I decided to read and analyze the transcript, because it sheds a fair bit of light on what normally has been a somewhat mysterious and vague process for most of the public.
The transcript begins with a quick summary of who's present at the tribunal. The president of the tribunal is a captain in the U.S. Navy. The other two members of the tribunal are lieutenant colonels, one from the Air Force and one from the Marine Corps. Also listed as being present at the tribunal are: a reporter, recorder and a Judge Advocate, all of whom are members of the U.S. military. Finally, the defendant has a personal representative, another lieutenant colonel from the Air Force.
Since I really did not have any idea what a personal representative actually does, I went to search for any documents that might offer some clarification. According to a fact sheet released by the military in 2004, the personal representative is "not a lawyer but provides assistance to the detainee that is not normally offered." A more informative answer is provided by a question and answer session held July 9, 2004 by Navy Secretary Gordon England. Secretary England says, "Their personal representative always appears and always presents whatever data is provided to them by the detainee. So their view is always heard." Furthermore, Secretary Gordon stated in the same session that there is no confidentiality between the personal representative and the client, meaning that the personal representative can reveal to the court whatever the detainee tells them. The personal representatives of detainees are far from being true lawyers. This is a large difference from normal court cases and one of the prime reasons that military tribunals have been widely criticized throughout the legal community.
Getting back to the case, the transcript then indicates that Mohammed asked for two detainees at the detention facility to come to the tribunal and testify that several pieces of evidence seized along with him were not actually his. However, after reviewing the request, the president of the court struck down the request for two witnesses and refused to allow them to testify. While in a civilian court, both the prosecution and defense can call witnesses; in the military tribunals only the prosecution has the guarantee to do so.
After attempting to call witnesses, the court moved on to statements from Mohammed. To begin with, the court took up the issue that Mohammed was tortured during his time in U.S. government custody. The tribunal allowed him to explain his side, although several parts of his testimony were redacted, or cut out for national security reasons. Afterward, his personal representative read off a list of 31 different attacks and plots that he was involved in and took responsibility for, including 9/11, the Bali night club bombings in Indonesia and a shoe bombing attempt, among many others. He says that he oversaw the planning, training and financing stages of these attacks. To me, it seems to be a little too convenient for him to have been involved in all of these different plots. While Mohammed may have been a high-ranking official in al-Qaida, I suspect that he is taking credit for operations that he may not have been involved in.
After the reading by his personal representative, Mohammed read a long personal statement containing his view of history, his justification for his actions, his ideology, etc. It makes for an interesting read, though I'm not sure how much of it is actually truthful versus self-justification and posturing.
After going through the transcript and conducting a bit of outside research, I remain unconvinced that this is the best method to prosecute enemy combatants. Judicial proceedings need to be transparent to ensure that due process is observed. In these tribunals, denying the accused the right to question witnesses, as well as the right to counsel, creates an enormous legal problem. On top of that, many of the detainees at Guantanamo may not be actual enemies of the United States, as many have been released without charges. This emphasizes the need for legal counsel at these tribunals. The short-circuit method of justice present in these tribunals should not be a practice with enemy combatants.
Andrew Wagner ([email protected]) is a sophomore majoring in computer science and political science.
IP hash: 3ceaba3b
Excellent article. And pretty soon, if we don’t stop the Bush Administration from destroying our Constitution, the civilian justice system will be just as bad.
IP hash: 13788092
Just shoot them and be done.
IP hash: a56d942a
Actually 11:55, the Dems have been spitting on the Constitution for decades, while I disagree that anything the GWBA has done is against the Constitution, perhaps it is about time the Repubs have had their shot at it (why should it matter to the libs anyhow, you seem to hate it unless you can use it to shut the opponents up).
IP hash: df37b8ba
I was amazed to find out that KSM was the leader of Nazi Germany during WWII. For all these years we’ve been vilifying Hitler.
IP hash: ddd08e93
more unadulterated leftist bullshit. Let’s see the man admitted to being involved in the worst terrorist attacks in our history. I think if I admitted to robbing a bank, even if I didn’t do it, then I am subject to whatever punishment is deemed fitting. I mean if you had nothing to do with the crime why admit to it? Are our courts now supposed to protect the American people or protect us from our own stupidity of admitting a crime we did not partake in. As someone else said use a bullet and be done with it. This ascribing “American rights and court procedures” to those who are not Americans and HATE US FOR THE RIGHTS WE HAVE, is totally ludricrous. I guarantee you we would not be held to an American style of justice if we as Americans were committed of a crime in a Muslim country (such as bringing in a bible, in many of them). But yet we are to offer to them a justice system that they are not by virtue of their citizenship privy too??? Wow, as a person who has been in the military for 20 years, I have been subject to such a tribunal (court marshall and UCMJ) for such a period. Funny that it is somehow unfair for terrorists to be tried in this manner, but perfectly “acceptable” for those of us in the military, who are protecting the country from just such terrorists as these.
IP hash: 9c771276
Beheading is the solution.
IP hash: e2314ce4
Liberals suck! I think we should put ‘em all away in camps. T think all the illegals in this country should be made slaves. And all you boo-hoo-I’m-being-persecuted-by-white-heterosexual-males minorities should just leave if they think it’s so bad here. What a bunch of losers! What the hell have any of you done for this country? Besides raise taxes? Besides bring crime to our streets? Besides blaming all your personal problems on someone else? Go to hell and stay there!
IP hash: 6fabc93d
Haha! 7:29 called 7:51’s rhetoric before he even typed it! You suck.
IP hash: 6a1271a0
i’m a big time liberal who TOTALLY DISAGREES with this article. The man ADMITTED TO PLOTTING 9/11 “A to Z.” What does it matter if he calls witnesses or not? A fair trial? HE ADMITTED GUILT. RIDICULOUS.
IP hash: 6fabc93d
What have conservatives done for this country, besides run up MASSIVE deficits?
IP hash: 5f5ffd59
The scary part is that so many people are not worried about the blatant lack of defendant rights and due process of the accused. While they should be in military courts, basic rights should be afforded to them. Although we may not be given the same respect in other countries overseas we have the moral responsibility as the World superpower to have out hands tied with such responsibilities. This is not a conservative or liberal issue; it is a choice between the rule of law or lawlessness and we, as a country needs to choose. - Germain E. Stemme
IP hash: 908130ac
Andrew, I believe you should tell this to the 9/11 victims’ families. Tell them that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed didn’t get the justice he deserved. Tell that to the families of the people who lept from the umpteetnth floor of whichever World Trade Center tower you so choose.
IP hash: 6fabc93d
Tell the 9/11 families that we focused on tracking down Osama Bin Laden and didn’t get distracted by an unnecessary war in Iraq. Tell the 9/11 families that their loved ones haven’t been used for political gain for almost 6 years. Tell the 9/11 families that their memorial has been built. Tell them how beautiful the new World Trade Center is. Tell them that WE won, not the terrorists… wait, you can’t.
Heckuva job, America.
IP hash: 13788092
“Heckuva job, America.”
If at first you don’t succeed, just quit - that’s the Dems advice.
IP hash: df37b8ba
11:14, my advice to you is this: If you ever find yourself neck deep in quicksand, keep struggling and keep thrashing. Don’t ease yourself out, don’t reach for that low-hanging branch, don’t call for help, just keep moving vigorously and erratically. The only way out for you is self destruction.