NYT: White House Bill Proposes System to Try Detainees

[deminks]

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/26/washington/26detain.html?ref=world

WASHINGTON, July 25 — Legislation drafted by the Bush administration setting out new rules on bringing terror detainees to trial would allow hearsay evidence to be introduced unless it was deemed “unreliable” and would permit defendants to be excluded from their own trials if necessary to protect national security, according to a copy of the proposal.

The bill, which officials said was being circulated within the administration, is not final, but it indicates the direction of the administration’s approach for dealing with a Supreme Court decision that struck down the tribunals established to try terror suspects at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba.

The 32-page bill preserves the idea of using military commissions to prosecute terror suspects and makes modest changes in their procedural rules, including several expanded protections for defendants, many of them drawn from the military’s legal code. But the proposal also sets up a possible confrontation with lawmakers who have called for modeling the trials on the military’s rules for courts-martial, which would allow defendants more rights.

The draft measure describes court-martial procedure as “not practicable in trying enemy combatants” because doing so would “require the government to share classified information” and would exclude “hearsay evidence determined to be probative and reliable.”

[HuffleClaw]

1. what a joke

flagrantly tossing out the cornerstones of the judicial system is a hallmark of BushCo.

[underpants]

10. Bush reviewed a 32 page report *IN* a meeting?

Yeah okay sure.

He's never read the thing and probably doesn't care. He just sits there like a kid in his Sunday School suit looking out the window daydreaming about riding his bike.

[Moderator]

2. kick

[eppur_se_muova]

3. Report: Proposal would allow hearsay evidence against detainees (AP/CNN)

Wednesday, July 26, 2006; Posted: 8:50 a.m. EDT (12:50 GMT)

WASHINGTON (AP) -- As the White House nears its recommendations to prosecute terror suspects detained by the military, it's undecided on whether to use courts martial or more stringent military tribunals.

A draft being circulated within the administration says the more defendant-friendly court-martial system is "not practicable in trying enemy combatants" since it would require the government to share classified information, The New York Times reported on its Web site Tuesday night.

According to the draft, hearsay evidence would be allowed unless it was deemed to be unreliable. Defendants also would be barred from their own trials if it necessary to protect national security.

The legislation also would declare that a provision of the Geneva Conventions would not apply to detainees, meaning terror suspects could not file lawsuits in the future saying their Geneva rights were violated, the Times said.

The Supreme Court ruled last month that the international conventions do apply.
***
more: http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/07/26/military.detainees.ap/index.html

[ixion]

4. how many different ways do we have to tell these schmucks that

the Geneva Conventions DO APPLY. Period. End of discussion. :grr:

[LiberalVoice]

5. So in other words NOTHING has changed.

God these people make me sick. They can still used made up evidence. They can still bar any combatants they want from being in the courtroom, and the Geneva conventions still dont apply. We are a nation of fascists.

[Spider Jerusalem]

6. Well, that's just wonderful...

let's just dispense with the established procedures for admission of evidence under the common law and throw centuries of precedent out the window. After all, we need to be able to act against terrorists </sarcasm>...

I wonder how long it will take for this relaxation of rules regarding admissible evidence is applied to other courts and cases? Another sliding step down that long slippery slope...

[Sir Jeffrey]

7. Why not just assert the divine right of kings?

We lost our "nation" a long time ago.

[Beetwasher]

8. "would permit defendants to be excluded from their own trials"

I don't even know what to say. This is frightening beyond belief. It's antithetical to absolutely the most basic principles this country was founded upon. Welcome to Bizarro USA.

[Nabia2004]

9. Police State USA

The land of the free with justice for all...

those were the days my friends

[robbedvoter]

11. What? No "lettres de cachet?