![]() |
By Ron Fullwood (about the author) Page 1 of 1 page(s)
For OpEdNews: Ron Fullwood - Writer
THE Obama Justice Dept. has announced their decision
to allow prisoners the U.S. military and other American intelligence
agencies are holding at Bagram prison in Afghanistan to challenge
their detentions. In an apparent step backward from their challenge of
a district court ruling in April that granted some military prisoners
in Afghanistan the right to file lawsuits seeking their release, the
decision this week would provide an administrative panel comprised of
military officers (not personal or military counsel) who would
determine the merit of the prisoner's appeals. The plan is to provide
an opportunity for those detained to call witnesses and present
evidence in their defense, something our citizens take for granted in
our own legal system.
In April, the Obama Justice Department asked
the court to halt the habeas-corpus cases of three detainees at Bagram,
signaling their intention to continue the Bush administration practice
of denying those detained by the U.S. at Gitmo and elsewhere basic
rights to representation, trial, and appeal. The court had found
that the cases at Bagram "closely parallel" those of prisoners held at
Guantanamo Bay, "in large part because the detainees themselves as well
as the rationale for detention are essentially the same." At Gitmo,
similar Administrative Review Boards have been in place since the
Supreme Court ruled in 2006 have to give these folks they'd tortured
due process rights. Those grudging constructions are far from the
representation Americans recognize as proper or necessary in our own
defense against illegal or unreasonable detentions and haven't resulted
in any significant reduction in the 'processing' of those still held
under the anti-democratic constructions of the last administration, at
Gitmo or anywhere else the U.S. is detaining the (mostly) political
captives of their war on terror.
They call them terrorists, but
only a fraction of the Arabs and Afghans held by the U.S. at the
Guantanamo Bay or Afghanistan prisons have been charged with anything.
You would think that if the U.S. had solid evidence against these
prisoners they would bring charges against them. All the Bush regime
and their Pentagon had actually wanted was permission to kill these
Gitmo detainees, legal-like. They caught them on the 'battlefield' and
they wanted to finish the job. Hell, when they caught these men (and
boys) our soldiers had tanks, airstrikes, shock and awe . . . to them,
all of this ducking around the Courts is an insult to all of the force
and manpower they put behind capturing these prisoners.
Their
greatest fear was that these prisoners would get their shot at what we
take for granted here in America: a free and fair trial, due process,
access to evidence against them with the right to challenge with
witnesses, protection against use of coerced confessions . . . and that
there won't be enough evidence to hold these prisoners, even though the
military would fall over themselves to vouch for their guilt. That's
why the Bush regime set up a tribunal with limited access to whatever
evidence they classify, no redress against coerced 'evidence', and
limited access to counsel (if any).
What the military and
other intelligence agencies really want from Congress is a law allowing
his lawyers to use hearsay evidence - like making one of our military
or government's finest, testify about something someone else told them
- to convict these men they tortured, and possibly have them executed.
You'll take the government and military's word for it all. . . won't
you?
That's the likely effect of the Obama administration's new
court-dodging construction. The prisoners the Bush administration
approved the torture of had to be coughed up from CIA custody, after
the Supreme Court ruling that military commissions must be explicitly
authorized by Congress. The new decision will merely put these
prisoners in a roomful of military actors posing as counsels and
advocates for the prosecution and the defense. The military and others
have tortured them pretty severely after dragging them through the
CIA's wild rendition tour - definitely illegal - and, they can't risk
any of that coming out in any actual trial discovery. Bush wanted a
closed 'trial' where 'evidence' would be presented in secret, without
the ones we tortured (or their 'lawyers') having access to any of it;
whatever there is of it. The Obama administration looks to want the
same advantage.
Moreover, the primary effect of keeping the
testimony of these prisoners out of open court is to suppress any
evidence or testimony presented by the prisoners of torture of abuse
which led to any of the 'confessions' that the U.S. is relying on to
ultimately convict them or keep them in detention. Bush wanted from
Congress legislation that would make everything he did in his terror
war - every law he's broken, every individual he's ordered abused,
every individual he's ordered detained indefinitely without charges,
every cover-up and hiding of 'evidence' he's authorized - completely
and retroactively legal. That way Bush would be able to continue on
with impunity. That way, he'd be able to keep his main political props
in place at Gitmo as a hedge against his failure to follow through on
capturing the 9-11 perpetrators identified in the military force
authorization he claimed gave him the power to ignore laws and the will
of Congress.
The Obama administration has mirrored the Bush
efforts in the defense of their own ongoing, escalated military
build-up and activity in Afghanistan which is undoubtedly adding to the
numbers of detainees at Bagram. Also, as a result of the disruption of
the Bush administration's covert rendition program, caused by the
change in the White House, there have been moves to transfer prisoners
from the black holes of secret CIA prisons, to Bagram, and a plan to
transfer prisoners to Afghanistan keep them away from any precipitating
moves at Gitmo which would provide rights and accountability to those
detained there. The decision to allow prisoners access to an
administrative review panel of military officers looks to be the same
sham that Bush provided at Gitmo, with no opportunity provided
prisoners to actually see the charges against them, review evidence, or
even present witnesses.
The new constructions are a mere
pretense of justice for those detained, much like the pretense of
democracy that our military is promoting and defending in their dual
occupations in Iraq and Afghanistan. It was an inexcusable political
ploy for Bush to hold these Afghans and Arabs in his prisons -
indefinitely, without charges - as substitutes for his inability to
capture the perpetrators our government says are directly responsible
for the 9-11 attacks: bin-Laden, and his accomplices. It's also an
inexcusable political ploy for this administration to represent these
administrative changes in their immoral detention policy as anything
more than window dressing on their own flailing attempts to translate
Bush's tyranny into their own anti-democratic terror war.
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author
and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.
Contact Author |
Contact Editor |
View Authors' Articles |
| No comments |
|
||||
Tell a Friend:
|
Copyright © 2002-2010, OpEdNews |