Chicago Tribune Editorial - Detainees and delays
Chicago Tribune Editorial - Detainees and delays
Copyright © 2007, Chicago Tribune
Published June 10, 2007
The Bush administration's handling of detainees at Guantanamo Bay was an exercise in improvisation from the start. That was at least partly inevitable, because the captives were the product of an unexpected war strikingly different from those of the past. The correct priority when the nation was hit by terrorists was protecting the lives and security of the American people in an emergency. But nearly six years later, the immediate emergency is over, and it's time for the administration to adjust its policy accordingly.
The latest evidence of the need came in two recent decisions by military judges blocking trials for accused war criminals being held at the facility. The captives were supposed to go before military commissions set up by the Pentagon for this purpose, but the judges said the proceedings could not go forward because the two were not shown to be "unlawful" enemy combatants, as required by law. Their cases were heard by special Combatant Status Review Tribunals -- which decide only if detainees are enemy combatants, not if they are unlawful. New hearings are in order, using stricter standards.
The decisions may not stand. The administration is asking the judges to reconsider, and if that option fails, it can appeal the verdicts. In any case, it presumably should be able to demonstrate that Taliban and Al Qaeda confederates were not operating in conformity to the laws of war. But this episode is a reminder that the entire process needs to be placed on a firmer and fairer legal footing.
The administration is right that the civilian courts are not ideally suited to try suspects like these. Much of the evidence against them would be inadmissible, since those detaining them were not police-trained to follow constitutional requirements. Military tribunals are a sensible alternative.
But the rules established by Congress and the administration fail to meet essential standards of fairness, giving the world the impression that the point is simply to get convictions rather than impartially assess guilt. And the repeated delays mean that detainees languish behind bars for year after year, with no meaningful way to contest their guilt -- and no prospect that the war will end, allowing their release.
It would not be hard to fix what's wrong with the current process. One step, proposed by Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.), is to let detainees have lawyers at the status review hearings and give those lawyers reasonable access to the evidence against them. Another, contained in a bill approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee last week, would let inmates challenge their detention in federal court. These measures are especially important for the great majority of detainees who are not accused of war crimes.
For those who are, the rules for the military commissions should be tightened to give defendants the right to see all evidence against them, with very narrow exceptions for vital security secrets, and to bar evidence obtained by torture or other coercion. Those changes should not prevent convictions of the guilty -- and if they do, the suspects may still be confined to keep them out of the fight.
The administration would rather stick with its original plan rather than make accommodations like these. So far, that approach has not worked out well for either side.
Copyright © 2007, Chicago Tribune
Published June 10, 2007
The Bush administration's handling of detainees at Guantanamo Bay was an exercise in improvisation from the start. That was at least partly inevitable, because the captives were the product of an unexpected war strikingly different from those of the past. The correct priority when the nation was hit by terrorists was protecting the lives and security of the American people in an emergency. But nearly six years later, the immediate emergency is over, and it's time for the administration to adjust its policy accordingly.
The latest evidence of the need came in two recent decisions by military judges blocking trials for accused war criminals being held at the facility. The captives were supposed to go before military commissions set up by the Pentagon for this purpose, but the judges said the proceedings could not go forward because the two were not shown to be "unlawful" enemy combatants, as required by law. Their cases were heard by special Combatant Status Review Tribunals -- which decide only if detainees are enemy combatants, not if they are unlawful. New hearings are in order, using stricter standards.
The decisions may not stand. The administration is asking the judges to reconsider, and if that option fails, it can appeal the verdicts. In any case, it presumably should be able to demonstrate that Taliban and Al Qaeda confederates were not operating in conformity to the laws of war. But this episode is a reminder that the entire process needs to be placed on a firmer and fairer legal footing.
The administration is right that the civilian courts are not ideally suited to try suspects like these. Much of the evidence against them would be inadmissible, since those detaining them were not police-trained to follow constitutional requirements. Military tribunals are a sensible alternative.
But the rules established by Congress and the administration fail to meet essential standards of fairness, giving the world the impression that the point is simply to get convictions rather than impartially assess guilt. And the repeated delays mean that detainees languish behind bars for year after year, with no meaningful way to contest their guilt -- and no prospect that the war will end, allowing their release.
It would not be hard to fix what's wrong with the current process. One step, proposed by Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.), is to let detainees have lawyers at the status review hearings and give those lawyers reasonable access to the evidence against them. Another, contained in a bill approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee last week, would let inmates challenge their detention in federal court. These measures are especially important for the great majority of detainees who are not accused of war crimes.
For those who are, the rules for the military commissions should be tightened to give defendants the right to see all evidence against them, with very narrow exceptions for vital security secrets, and to bar evidence obtained by torture or other coercion. Those changes should not prevent convictions of the guilty -- and if they do, the suspects may still be confined to keep them out of the fight.
The administration would rather stick with its original plan rather than make accommodations like these. So far, that approach has not worked out well for either side.
posted by Carlos T Mock at 8:09 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home