By Cliff Montgomery – Dec. 27th, 2009
The United States for the last several years has used military commissions to try suspected terroristsdetained at Guantanamo and elsewhere.
In a criminal trial, the defendant’s natural rights are protected through numerous legal safeguards. But thosereasonable safeguards often are not available for those tried by a military commission.
For instance, a military commission may permit hearsay to be placed into evidence against a defendant, andit fails to recognize a person’s right to a quick and speedy trial.
Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) serves as Chairman of the U.S. House Subcommittee on the Constitution, CivilRights, and Civil Liberties. In July, Rep. Nadler provided tough critiques of these military commissions duringtwo panel hearings on the controversial subject.
The records of those hearings were published in November.
The American Spark below provides readers with a number of quotes from Nadler’s statements:
“The Subcommittee examines the military commission system and, more importantly, how we as a Nation canwork together productively to clean up the terrible legacy of the Bush Administration’s detention policies in amanner that provides us with a legitimate legal framework going forward.
“One question which arises immediately in view of the apparent [Obama] Administration position, as stated…byDepartment of Defense general counsel Jeh Johnson that we can hold indefinitely even people acquitted inthe military tribunal, is what is the purpose of the military tribunal in the first place – indeed, what is the purposeof any court hearing if the judge can say you’re acquitted and remanded for indefinite detention? What’s thepurpose of a trial in that case?
“Over the past 7 years, approximately 800 individuals have been detained at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba, withsome 500 already having being released before President Obama took office in January. In those 7 years onlythree detainees were convicted of terrorism offenses by military commissions. Approximately 240 individualsremain in Guantanamo. Most of these men have been held for at least 4 years, some have been detained formore than 6 years, all without being charged or tried or convicted of any crime–a blot on American justice byany standard.
“In addition to Guantanamo we’ve also detained individuals in other parts of the world, including Afghanistan.Some of these cases are fairly straightforward, some are not.
“But for each of these cases, we need to have a means of determining whether the individual is a combatant,lawful or otherwise, whether they are guilty of a crime, and whether they are a threat to the United States. Wemust decide how to deal with these individuals in a manner that ensures that our Nation is protected fromthose who would do us harm, and that is consistent with our laws, our treaty obligations and our values.
“This is the United States of America, and we have traditions and beliefs worth fighting for and worthpreserving.
“The problem will not go away simply because we have closed Guantanamo. We are still fighting inAfghanistan and Iraq. We are still battling terrorists around the world. We will continue to have to intercept anddetain individuals who have attacked us, or who have threatened us, or who we believe–perhapsmistakenly–to do so.
“We need to be sure that however we handle these cases, we do not conduct kangaroo courts.
“Remember what it is we are trying to do here. We need to sort out who among these detainees are trulydangerous, who have truly done something for which they must be detained–and who has not.
“These detainees are accused terrorists. While the previous Administration was fond of reminding people thatthe detainees were ‘the worst of the worst’, the Bush Administration, in fact, released a vast majority of them,approximately 500 in all. Presumably they did not believe they were releasing ‘the worst of the worst.’ “
“We have an obligation to determine who should and should not be in detention, and to afford fair trials tothose who we believe have committed crimes, and to release all others. This is especially important if ourgovernment plans to seek prison sentences or to execute those convicted.
“This debate has been dominated by a great deal of fear-mongering. That is no way to deal with a problem ofthis magnitude.”
“We are not the first country in history to have to deal with potentially dangerous people. Indeed, this is not thefirst time this country has had to deal with potentially dangerous people.”
“My concern remains that we may be creating a system in which we try you in Federal court if we have strongevidence, we try you by military commission if we have weak evidence, and we detain you indefinitely if we haveno evidence.
“That is not a justice system.”
