Air Force colonel orders Marine General to confinement
MCPO sends us a link to the Miami Herald which reports that Air Force Judge Colonel Vance Spath sentenced Marine Brigadier General John Baker to 21 days confinement and to pay a $1,000 fine for refusing the judge’s decision rescinding the general’s decision to release civilian lawyers, Rick Kammen, Rosa Eliades and Mary Spears from their obligation to defend Abd al Rahim al Nashiri in the USS Cole bombing case.
The judge ordered Baker confined to his trailer quarters on Guantanamo Bay Navy Base and he ordered the lawyers to litigate the terrorists defense by telecommuting from New York City.
Spath, who has declared they had no good cause to quit, had ordered Kammen, Eliades and Spears to come to Guantánamo on Sunday with other war court staff for a pretrial hearing. They refused. Kammen, a veteran capital defense attorney who had represented Nashiri for a decade, said Spath’s order to travel was an “illegal” effort to have three U.S. citizens “provide unethical legal services to keep the façade of justice that is the military commissions running.”
Nashiri is accused of orchestrating al Qaida’s Oct. 12, 2000 suicide bombing of the U.S. warship off Yemen. Seventeen sailors died, and dozens more were injured. He has been in U.S. custody for 15 years, and was arraigned in 2011.
Baker has been a critic of the hybrid-military/civilian court system in Guantanamo, according to Russia Today;
“Put simply, the military commissions in their current state are a farce,” Baker said at a talk last year.
As of Monday, Nashiri had just one attorney to represent him in the trial, and it is a US Navy lieutenant with no death penalty experience. The man could face military execution if he is convicted.
I wonder if they’ve given that lieutenant a compass and a map – that would ensure that his client will die, one way or the other.
Category: Legal
Oh, gee, only 15 years? whatever happened to that ‘speedy and just trial’ thingy?
OK,OK, I know Nashiri’s not a US citizen, but gee whiz, if he’s going to get the death penalty anyway, what’s the problem??
Oh, I have a great idea!!! Send that quack lawyer – you know, the one in Hampton Roads Correctional – down to Gitmo to defend him. That way, whatshisname will be exonerated and possibly get good behavior points to balance all the crap he’s tried to pull, and Nashiri will get out of his cell once in a while.
As to your first question, it really begs is BG Baker right when he calls it farcical?
Kangaroo courts tend not to run cases for the better part of two decades. Even the Nuremberg Trials lasted a fraction of that time.
As far as not being a citizen, that really isn’t the main issue. Constitutional, criminal protections apply to all people who commit crimes in the US (e.g. illegal aliens that get their day in court). The issue is that he was picked up outside the US and is treated as an enemy combatant. What that gets for you as far as legally, I’m not sure. but if we are going to detain him indefinitely, then lets just say so. If we are going to execute him for bombing the Cole, then it shouldn’t take a decade and a half. So yes, it does seem like a farce on the face of it.
And where is it codified in law that lawyers can be FORCED to represent people? Did they sign a contract? What is the “Obligation” mentioned? Not sure what is going on there.
Never mind – just saw the conversations below.
One thought on a lawyer being forced to work your case. Not sure I would want my lawyer, defending me in a capital case, to be there under duress. I know they would generally act professionally and not sand bag the case (for professional, reputation and legal reasons), but I would want my guy to be at 100% – know what I mean?!
BGen Baker should have known better. Contempt of a military judge’s ruling is no joke, and one doesn’t get any extra legal latitude in that regard simply because one is a General Officer.
I don’t imagine that BGen Baker’s conversation with Marine Corps Commandant General Neller was very pleasant in the aftermath of this incident. It probably wrapped up with a ‘suggestion’ from the Commandant that he resign/retire.
As per the Miami Herald article linked above:
‘[…]
Baker, the second-highest ranking lawyer in the Marine Corps, is a 28-year career officer who got his law degree from the University of Pittsburgh in 1997. Baker applied for the job two years ago, which came with a promotion, as a colonel at the Marine Corps Military Justice and Community Development unit. He has served as both a defense attorney and prosecutor on traditional military court-martial cases.
[…].’
So, if he’s ‘asked’ to retire now, he won’t have 3 years time in grade as a BGen, so he’ll probably go out the door as a Colonel.
And all of this would have been so easy to avoid…
So it seems that COL Spath essentially held Gen Baker in some kind of contempt?
I’m assuming Baker will pull and Andrew Jackson and say “Col Spath has rendered his decision, now let him enforce it” and continue about his business (besides, I’ve been to Gitmo and it’s pretty much like being in confinement anyway, though I’ll admit the weather there is pretty decent this time of year.)
Still, I think this shows just what a ginormous cluster-fuck the whole military tribunal thing is. It would have been better for all concerned if Nashiri had simply been “aggressively interrogated” to extract any useful information and then either “disappeared” or if that is too upsetting, quietly turned over to one of our allies that is less squeamish about dealing with vipers than we are.
Sounds to me like someone quite senior forgot one essential difference between uniformed personnel and civilians: civilians are free to quit their jobs whenever they like.
I know these lawyers are simply playing politics, and I think they’re also behaving unprofessionally in doing so. But if they want to “grandstand” by publicly quitting, as civilians they have the right to do precisely that.
Hondo I seem to recall that once a lawyer has entered an appearance they can only be released by the consent of the judge.
So the short answer is, no, they’re NOT free to quit.
I don’t know what ethics rules these trials use but under the Model Rules of Professional Responsibility 1.16 (c) states that: A lawyer must comply with applicable law requiring notice to or permission of a tribunal when terminating a representation. When ordered to do so by a tribunal, a lawyer shall continue representation notwithstanding good cause for terminating the representation.
I’m assuming the military or civil courts that have jurisdiction have a similar rule, perhaps worded differently but essentially the same: A lawyer cannot withdraw from a case once that lawyer has entered an appearance unless that lawyer is granted leave by the court to do so.
Really? What statute would their quitting violate, and what statutory authority would a military judge have to compel them to continue if they’re not subject to the UCMJ?
The grandstanding lawyers here could indeed – and IMO, should – face professional sanctions for quitting without giving due notice and receiving judicial OK. But similar sanctions exist in other professions as well.
However, that doesn’t alter the fact that they are still legally free to quit at any time, provided they’re willing to face the consequences. They can’t be legally compelled to continue working against their will.
Different story for those serving in the military, or who are otherwise subject (due to physical presence overseas with the military) to the UCJM. Those in uniform can indeed be compelled, under pain of court-martial on the grounds of violating general or specific orders, to continue performing whatever duties they are assigned. (I believe that the same is true for civilian employees accompanying the military overseas as well, but I’d have to check that in some detail.)
The UCMJ doesn’t appear to apply here, since the civilian lawyers in question don’t seem to be under military jurisdiction. Specifically, they appear to be based in NYC and commute, presumably by invitational travel orders, to GITMO for court dates. They’re thus only “accompanying the military” while they’re physically present in GITMO. When in NYC, they’re not.
Unethical conduct aside, as I see it legally these guys can indeed quit. They just need to be willing to take the heat for doing so. And given NYC and the NY Bar Association’s political leanings, I doubt they’ll take much heat for quitting – though they should.
Legally permissible doesn’t mean cost free. You can do pretty much anything that’s legally permissible if you can afford the consequences.
I’d be willing to bet that they became subject to UCMJ when they asked for permission to practice in a military court. Just like every lawyer is subject to the rules and rulings of any jurisdiction they practice in, say like if I live in ohio and request permission to represent a client in michigan, I can’t just ignore a michigan judge’s orders because I don’t live there and am not a member of the michigan bar.
I only went to law school, so what do I actually know? Not much, but my gut says they signed up for it.
I’m not a military lawyer so maybe one of the JAG types can jump in but AFAIK there are very, VERY few circumstances under which a person who is not in the military can ever be subjected to the UCMJ.
Even dependent personnel who accompany their families to US military installations overseas are not subject to the UCMJ, though they are subject to both US Federal law and Host Nation law, depending on what the SOFA (status of forces agreement) says.
UCMJ, rules of practice in military courts, whatever. My point is that they had to request permission to practice in that court and therefore volunteered to submit to the jurisdiction of that court. They can’t just blow a fucking raspberry at the court, scream WE’RE CIVILIANS, then take their ball and go home.
Two different issues.
Lawyer or not, you might want to review 10 USC 802(a) – which is the part of the UCMJ that defines precisely who is subject to the UCMJ. Maybe I missed it, but I don’t see “civilian lawyers participating in military trials” listed there.
The closest thing I can find is 10 USC 802(a)(10), which reads as follows:
Arguably, that might apply to civilian lawyers participating in GITMO military tribunals while they were physically present in GITMO. But it clearly doesn’t apply when they’re in CONUS – because they’re not “accompanying an armed force in the field” while they’re in their offices in NYC. So I don’t think these individuals are in general personnel “subject to the UCMJ” – and thus aren’t bound by its provisions.
Following court procedures is a different issue. As I noted above, they may well be subject to their state bar’s disciplinary process for failing to follow procedural rules (the military can’t discipline them, because as civilians not accompanying the military in the field as they aren’t subject to the UCMJ – though perhaps a Federal civilian court could impose sanctions). However, since we appear to have contradictory judicial orders here, they well may not be subject to any sanctions at all. I’d guess that would depend on which order is from the superior military court, regardless of the rank of the judges involved – with the superior court’s order taking precedence.
In any case: bar discipline is a different issue than being subject to the UCMJ.
Disclosure: I’m not a lawyer, and I didn’t go to law school. But I can certainly read the actual text of the US Code. And this particular Federal statute( 10 USC 802(a)) is quite clear regarding precisely who is subject to the UCMJ – and, by omission, who is not (everyone else).
This is an Article I court, subject to review by Article III court, so basically the issuing judge is a federal judge. Feel free to play word games like this with one, and I’m certain you’ll find out real quick fast and in a hurry that while you may not be charged under a provision of the UCMJ you are still going to jail for contempt because his jurisdiction is basically directly up your ass after you appear in his court.
That would indeed be an interesting legal “food fight” – a military court attempting to compel a nonmilitary lawyer to appear at an overseas military tribunal to defend someone when the nonmilitary lawyer has said, in effect, he quit. I’d foresee that ending up in a Federal civilian court on jurisdictional issues very quickly.
Your guess is as good as mine regarding whether the Federal civilian courts would compel the civilian lawyer to continue in the case or not. My guess is that they might – but that the process would drag out for a year or longer. And they might not, deciding instead that forcing the civilian lawyer to continue against his will would be an invitation for appeal of any conviction obtained on the grounds of “bad” legal counsel.
Whether the Federal civilian court would jail the guy for contempt during the process is yet another question. Dunno.
Frankly, I hope we don’t see any of that. This whole GITMO process has dragged on far too long IMO. But I guess we’ll see if the three civilian lawyers show up in NoVA or not as ordered.
Regarding the original story: there’s gotta be more going on than has been made public. I can’t understand how two military judges ended up so badly at odds as apparently happened here.
Good discussion, and thought provoking; thanks. No offense meant, and I hope none was taken.
A serious question, as follow-up, and not meant to be argumentative: what happens if a defense attorney (or prosecutor) literally quits the profession during a trial? Quits, as in formally notifies the bar that they’re leaving the profession and turns in their law license?
Hondo: Legally the lawyer would still have to request leave from the court to withdraw, but that request would, of course, be immediately granted (for obvious reasons) and either the party would be given the opportunity to substitute a new lawyer or the court would assign one.
Ditto if the lawyer dies during the proceeding (which sometimes does happen) – obviously the dead lawyer can’t request to be removed from the case but the court can appoint another lawyer to take the case or stay the proceedings until the party with the dead lawyer finds one.
I think sometimes non-lawyers don’t appreciate just how much power a court judge has. With regards to what happens within his courtroom, judges have a level of authority and power that is almost that of a dictator or a prince.
The word of the judge is LAW and while a lawyer can challenge a judges ruling (say on an evidentiary or procedural matter), the old medieval saying kicks in that “if you strike at the king, you better kill him” because judges don’t like having their rules questioned.
Obviously the “check and balance” here is that everything that happens in court is recorded and therefore if there is a bad outcome, the party that has suffered can appeal the case to a higher court which will review the conduct of the judge in question.
Fucking Bingo. A sitting JAG judge is a federal judge. Feel free to argue “the constitution” or “freedom” to your heart’s content. Tax Protestors do it frequently and then go to jail.
The idea that you can tell a Federal Judge to fuck off and then expect OTHER federal judges to back your play is basically hitting burning pieces of C4 with a hammer.
Feel free to tell me how that works out.
These dicks asked for a privilege, then refused to live up to the responsibilities, they were not ordered to be there, but they can sure as fuck be ordered back to explain why they are quitters.
I don’t know why people seem to forget that the judiciary is it’s OWN BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT. Iron Triangles and shit. Fuck me running. Yes you can wear a t-shirt that says “fuck this court” as a defendant. Don’t do it. Don’t play catch with grandpa’s sweating dynamite either for that matter.
In addition one might argue that AUMF isn’t a declaration of war. Congress hasn’t seen fit to declare war since 1941…another topic for discussion to be sure.
One might argue that the AUMF is not a declaration of war but it would be a very weak argument.
There is no language anywhere in the Constitution that dictates what form a declaration of war must take. We have used AUMF’s or similar Congressional resolutions numerous times over the years (Korean Emergency in 1950; Gulf of Tonkin resolution in 1964; AUMF for Desert Storm in 1991, etc) and AFAIK such a declaration has never been successfully challenged as not being a “declaration of war” because it didn’t use those words exactly.
FWIW: 10 USC 802(a)(10) doesn’t specifically require a declaration of war for specified nonmilitary personnel to be subjected to the UCMJ. Civilians accompanying the military during a declared “contingency operation” also are subject to the UCMJ.
Legally, I’m pretty sure that both OIF and OEF were considered “contingency operations”.
IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.
A rather open ended document, allowing the Executive to run roughshod over a series of third world shitholes.
Funny how we are carefully avoiding a war with the nation that produced the bulk of the 9-11 murderers….
You’re splitting hairs here, Hondo. Whether it’s a Rule of Professional Responsibility or a statute, there is an established body of law that says a lawyer cannot unilaterally withdraw from a case without permission of the court.
Saying that the lawyer is “legally free” to do so as long as he can withstand the consequences is like saying I’m legally free to libel someone or to commit another tort as long as I’m OK with paying the penalty for it.
But that’s not correct: The reason there’s a legal penalty for committing a tort is because I’m not “legally free” to commit one, even if I have big bucks and can easily pay the judgment.
No one has said (to my knowledge) that the lawyers in question can be held criminally liable for withdrawing from the case (and I certainly never said they could.)
But criminal liability is not the only form of legal consequence.
Not splitting hairs at all. Just making a couple of points concerning jurisdiction and freedom.
Military judges have jurisdiction over personnel who are subject to the UCMJ. They don’t have jurisdiction over those who aren’t subject to the UCMJ – that’s reserved for Federal/state/local civilian courts. The UCMJ itself is quite clear on who is and isn’t bound by it.
Professional sanctions are a different matter entirely. The lawyers here might well be subject to sanction by the NY bar for trying to withdraw without judicial permission (they’re not subject to the UCMJ, so I’m fairly sure the military has no authority to impose sanctions). Or they might not be, since we have conflicting judicial orders. Let’s see if they comply with the AF judge’s order to continue via telecommute or not. If they comply with the AF judge’s order, I’m guessing no sanctions will happen.
I’ll also stand by my original assessment here. Generally, professional rules and sanctions only apply within a given profession; statutes apply across the board to all professions. A civilian is always free to quit their current profession and attempt to make a living a different way; provided that other way is not illegal, you’re not subject to prosecution for making a career change. You’re free to do that if you like.
Doing so may be costly, and depending on the circumstances might also be unethical. It also might violate a contract or agreement, leading to litigation and substantial financial loss. But civilians are nonetheless free to change careers, or quit a job, without fear of criminal prosecution.
It’s a different story for those in uniform. Those serving in the military are not free to quit at will and seek another job. Try that, and you can easily end up facing criminal charges.
That’s a quibble, Hondo. If doing an act (or failing to do an act) can subject a person to legal sanctions, it doesn’t matter whether those sanctions are criminal, civil or professional, in all cases the act in question can be said to be “illegal” because there are legal sanctions that can be imposed. “Illegal” and “criminal” are not synonymous. You can commit an “illegal” act without becoming a criminal. Another way to phrase it is that not all “illegal” acts are criminal, but all criminal acts are illegal. 😉 The best example I can think of right off the top of my head is property taxes. It is illegal to not pay your property taxes, but the County won’t arrest you and throw you in jail for not paying them – instead they’ll just take your property. No criminal penalty will be assessed (unless you do something like try to impede the action of the Sheriff in evicting you from the property, which IS a crime.) UCMJ, rules of practice in military courts, whatever. My point is that they had to request permission to practice in that court and therefore volunteered to submit to the jurisdiction of that court. They can’t just blow a fucking raspberry at the court, scream WE’RE CIVILIANS, then take their ball and go home. I completely agree. In every court I’m aware of, one of the EXPLICIT conditions of being admitted to the bar of that court is the condition that the lawyer practicing will respect all of the rules of that court and I can’t believe that military courts would not work the same way as every civilian court from the SCOTUS all the way down to the town magistrate in Resume Speed, Montana. Implicit in agreeing to abide by the rules of the court is acknowledging the authority of that court to determine what those rules are. So while I can’t think that civilian lawyers who practice in a military court are themselves subject to the UCMJ (because the question of who is subject to the UCMJ is a matter of Federal… Read more »
Under the Authority of the Court as a Federal Tribunal Article I. I wasn’t going to look up if the UCMJ codified it or re-codified it or not. That is a fool’s errand.
Own branch of government. Makes little difference what statutes say. Reality lies in the case law.
Remember hanging judges in the territories post civil war? Same guys. Same powers. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.
Hondo, there are federal magistrate courts located on military installations. Do you think such a court, say based at Fort Drum, might come into play here as the legal instrument to enforce the military judge’s order?
Where the hell is Alberich when we need him?
M.M.C. Rule 505(d)(2)(B)) provides that the “authority competent to detail [defense] counsel may excuse or change such counsel … for other good cause shown on the record.” Baker is clearly the competent authority and believes good cause existed (i.e., eavesdropping). Unlike the rules for civilian courts, nothing in the rule requires Baker or learned counsel to get the judge’s permission.
The twist is that The trial rules of court provide that “excusal must be approved by the Military Judge.” R.C. 4.2(a).
However, M.M.C. Rule 108 provides that “[t]he Chief Trial Judge for Military Commissions may make rules of court *not inconsistent with [the M.M.C.’s] rules* for the conduct of the military commission’s proceedings.
In other words, all sides may be acting in good faith, but it’s most likely the trial judge is in error re the key issue.
I wish they’d quit playing politics, execute forthwith every one of those Gitmo scumbags, and be done with it.
Roger that.
Agreed, GB, and precisely the reason we do not want this New York terrorist taken to Gitmo. Convict him on federal murder and terror charges and hang his sorry goat-fucking ass.
Yeah, right – if he even gets the death penalty in a Federal civilian court trial (courts in the NE USA seem fairly reluctant to hand out death sentences). And even if he gets a death sentence, good luck on seeing him executed within the next 20 years or so.
I always laugh when someone says “the death penalty is shown not to be a deterrent to crime”. If you think upon conviction you will see penalty carried out in 365 days (to allow time for ONE mandatory appeal), I’ll bet that is a better deterrent than the current could-die-of-old-age plan we use now.
Any Sociologist or Social Psychologist would agree that for a GENERAL DETERRENT e.g. execution; to be effective it MUST have the following three elements of SWIFTNESS, SEVERITY and CERTAINTY. I make no assertion past this statement.
Agree.
I had a discussion a few years ago with a colleague who was a defense attorney for one of the GITMO folks. She was less than pleased when I pointed out to her that continually fighting the court process was perhaps not in the best interest of their clients.
If there had been a conviction/sentence, you could still argue the flawed process later on appeal and your client would have most likely been a free man after 5 years. Instead, the defense counsels antics have left their clients in limbo and confinement much longer than necessary.
FWIW, this is one of the cases that should have been tried in a Federal Court as the crime was committed before Congress legally commenced the GWOT. I’m sure that he would have been able to get a fair hearing in one of the Federal districts where a either the Cole was home ported (Virginia), or where several of the crew members were from (Texas).
Baker and his ilk have a lot of nerve complaining about how long and drawn out the proceedings have been at GITMO. They have been playing stalling and delaying tactics for years. Likely because they know their clients are guilty as criminals and unlawful combatants. The worst of them should have been hanged years ago and buried in a fresh pigskin.
One of BGen Baker’s punishments ought to be spending some serious range time. Good grief an official picture with two toilet seats!
It’s sounds like the guy has some integrity. I’d rather see a General with marksman shooting badges then see a bunch with expert that cheated their annual qual which is quiet common in the officer ranks.
+1
I think thats more myth than reality since its senior NCOs and the Gunner that run the ranges. When I was a Marine Officer we sure never got any slack and in fact we often got screwed out of snapping in. I had a Battalion Commander go unk once, an Infantry Battalion Commander, and when he requalled with high expert he could only wear the MM badge and it about killed him (and its not like any of us razed him!).
Now I did see from time to time use of the 5.56mm govt pen in the butts when I was a PFC and LCpl.
Everything about this story is absurd. Only one lawyer? Awwww poor baby. 10+ years lawyers? Who the fuck is paying these jackoffs? Sounds like lawyers down there are bending over John Q tax payer.
Everybody down there is bending over John Q Taxpayer….the cost per detainee is far more than the cost of a few boxes of ammo to send them home in a zippered bag.
Cuban Crocodiles. No need to waste the rounds or the bags.
I ain’t payin’ for no bag when there are fish starving in the ocean…;)
One box should do nicely unless it’s the Jarhead General doing the job…
I’ve no quarrel with the lawyers wishing to quit.
They no longer wish to be part of something that is, in their opinion, nothing more than a facade. They will take a hit for that as they should, but I can’t fault them for deciding this is something they can’t be part of on principle. I don’t have to agree with their principles, but I can respect them. I’m not yet convinced the attorneys are completely wrong here, it’s more theater than justice anyway and so far it’s been really bad theater.
What was the point of trials for these guys anyway? Waterboard the fuck out of them, get what you need and send them home in a fucking body bag. They’re not citizens, they aren’t protected by our constitution. They operate as non-uniformed enemies of the United States. Interrogation and termination are the best approach.
Yep I agree with this approach, and as I said above, if we’re too squeamish as a nation to do it, we have lots of alliances with nations that are not.
Just saying there’s a lot of sand and dirt in Saudi Arabia….
They are considered illegal combatants under the Geneva Accords. The Accords further state an illegal combatant has NO rights under those accords and can legally be executed upon capture. If we didn’t have the bullshit Law of Land Warfare, we could have taken care of the issue that way and Gtmo would never have been necessary.
I think part of what was missed here is that the real confusion between Spath and Baker is that they are operating under two different sets of rules. Spath is operating under the Trial Judiciary Rules and Baker is following the Manual for Military Commissions. These two conflict on who has penultimate authority to release the services of a lawyer. That plus the ethical issue the lawyers have is based on something classified, making it all the more difficult to address.
BTW, winding this all the way back to the beginning, there’s a very valid reason for rules like the MRCP 1.16 (c) that I posted above.
It’s to protect clients from unscrupulous lawyers who could threaten to withdraw from a case if the client didn’t double their fee or take an unfavorable plea bargain, accept an unfavorable settlement offer, etc.
As far as whether such a rule is necessary, well, you know how whenever you sign a contract these days there are about 50 clauses in there? The reason those clauses are there is because somewhere, sometime, somebody had a similar contract WITHOUT that clause and they lost a court case because that clause wasn’t in there. So from that point on, the clause is there.
And it’s the same with the professional responsibility rule that prevents a lawyer from arbitrarily withdrawing from a case.
No lawyer is obligated to take any case, but once he does take a case and “enters an appearance” in front of a court he is in for the duration unless he is granted leave by the court to withdraw.
I should add there’s another reason for the rule: It prevents the lawyer from quitting the case at a critical point in order to set his client up for an “ineffective counsel” argument on appeal.
“That plus the ethical issue the lawyers have is based on something classified, making it all the more difficult to address.”
Pup, could you expand on that just a bit?
There were a couple of news releases that had the following (or similar) blurb…
“Baker excused three defense attorneys assigned by the Pentagon to defend al-Nashiri on ethical issues that arose out of what they said was a breach of the attorney-client privilege. Officials have not disclosed the details of the allege breach, saying the information is classified.” — ABC News
There were similar statements in Miami Herald, Washington Post, etc. The best overview I found was at the lawfareblog.
If there’s one thing I think we can all agree on it’s that this whole process has been a monumental cock-up.
Unfortunately, there’s no easy way out of this dilemma. IMO the Bush administration that decided to convene military tribunals (in an effort to simplify the process vs. trying them in Federal court) just made more of a mess of things in terms of trying to make less of a mess.
Given the cost, complexity and no-win situation that this has created, it would be better for all concerned (including the detainees) if we simply dropped charges and shipped them off to some other country where no matter what happened to them, it wouldn’t be on our shoulders.
Yes, the families of the Cole victims would squawk, but a trial isn’t going to bring their loved ones back.
I actually think Trump would be within his authority as the CIC to order just such a release, and given that he doesn’t much care what happens to the Republican party after he’s out of office (not that he should) I wonder if he may be considering doing just that.
Agree with releasing them 100%. I suggest 30N 30W… no boat.
Heck, if it was up to me, I’d consider implanting each one of the prisoners with some kind of tracking device just prior to release. Then after that, just let the MOSSAD or other international intelligence outfits know that if something bad were to happen to these guys, we’d just be heartbroken….
And this children, is why if I was still in my Marines would not take any prisoners.
Preach it!
The guy is gonna do life on the appeals process alone.
“Pentagon official releases Marine general confined in Guantanamo dispute.”
https://www.politico.com/story/2017/11/03/john-baker-released-guantanamo-dispute-244523
Read the Miami Herald reporting in full. It has a couple of key points: the civilian lawyers bailed after they encountered a violation of attorney client privilege that was apparently both highly classified in nature and serious enough to walk away on. In short, they could not dignify the tribunal by their continues presence.
Secondly, as this is a capital case, the defendant is entitled to “learned counsel”, i.e. lawyer(s) who have defended cases where the death penalty was on the table. The Navy LT has said as much that he is not qualified as learned counsel, but the judge continues to pressure for him to go to trial.
Someone has pitted out that Nuremberg took less time. It took less than a year, involved 24 initial defendants, and was conducted in English, French, Russian, and maybe more languages. It also brought in some of the very best legal minds of the age, to make sure that the trials would not simply be a matter of “might makes right”.
In this day and age we seem to think we’re smarter than past generations, and that by pulling things out of our ass we achieve a superior result.
1 – You guys are all pissed off that Nashirir isn’t dead yet. Oui, je comprend tout.
2 – Nashiri’s been held in jail waiting for a final decision on him.
3 – a) These attorneys don’t want to be embroiled in an ethics violation.
3 – b) These attorneys don’t want to be held accountable for security violations.
4 – The replacement attorney for Nashiri is too inexperienced to meet the requirements for Nashiri’s defense.
5 – This business has dragged on for several years with no conclusion and wasted time and tax money.
6 – I’m still not clear AS TO why this is a mixture of military/civilian legal beagles, especially since the civilian lawyers have made it clear they refuse to violate security rules.
7 – Nashiri is arguably the strategist and leader of the Cole bombing group, as I understand it. If there is no evidence to the contrary about Nashiri, then the delay seems unreasonable to most people, EXCEPT THAT people on death row have delayed their sentences for decades by repeatedly filing appeals. Under US law, Nashiri can do the same thing. Ergo, the delays become a moot point.
8 – Every one of you howling for vengeance needs to remember that we aren’t those uncivilized thugs who want to slaughter us simply because we exist. We’re better than that.
That is all.