Military Lawyer Slams U.S. Terrorism Tribunals

[Chewbacca]

The last sentence of this article makes for a nice question: What is a valid reason(s) to create a new justice system only for non-U.S. citizens?


Link
************************

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Marine Corps lawyer assigned to defend an Australian terror suspect being held at the Guantanamo naval base in Cuba Wednesday criticized the military tribunal process and said it will not allow a fair trial.

Maj. Michael Mori, who in November was assigned to be the military attorney for David Hicks -- an Australian held at the U.S. military prison in Cuba -- said the system set up by the Pentagon for trials of non-U.S. citizens captured during what U.S. officials call the war on terror was unfair.

"The military commissions will not provide a full and fair trial," Mori told a news conference. "The commission process has been created and controlled by those with a vested interest only in convictions."

"Fairness is extremely important in all cases, particularly those that have commanded such international attention and will have international impact," he said.

Mori has met three times with Hicks, who has been held for two years in Guantanamo Bay along with hundreds of other prisoners detained during the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan.

None of the roughly 660 prisoners held at Guantanamo Bay has yet been charged with any crimes although Pentagon officials have suggested that military trials for some could begin soon.

Most held at the base were arrested during the U.S. war that toppled the Taliban in Afghanistan. Washington accused the Taliban of harboring al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden, who is blamed for the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the United States.

President Bush authorized the military commission trials two months after the Sept. 11 attacks.

"STRIKING INJUSTICE"

The tribunals have sparked criticism in the United States and abroad from rights groups and legal activists who say the procedures are designed to produce convictions.

Mori agreed, saying, "Using the commission process just creates an unfair system that threatens to convict the innocent and provides the guilty a justifiable complaint as to their convictions."

Under the rules, the Pentagon can monitor communications between prisoners and their lawyers, and there is no independent judicial review process. Appeals go only to a special military review panel named by the Pentagon, to the secretary of defense or the president.
Mori and four other military defense lawyers filed a brief with the Supreme Court last week challenging the constitutionality of the tribunals. In a friend-of-the-court brief filed to the U.S. high court in connection with a suit challenging some prisoners' detention, they argued that foreign terrorism suspects being tried in the tribunals should be given the right to appeal to civilian courts.

Australia, which opposes the death penalty, already has won assurances from the United States that Hicks and another Australian detainee, Mamdouh Habib, could not be sentenced to death. Both men would also be allowed to return home to serve any prison sentences if convicted.

Mori said the most "striking injustice" of the system was that commission members, who take the place of an independent judge, do not have the authority to decide issues that could end up in the dismissal of a charge.

Mori said although he and other military lawyers assigned to defend prisoners at Guantanamo Bay had complained about the tribunal system, their concerns had not been addressed.

Mori, who said he called the news conference to draw attention to problems in the tribunal system, said the existing military justice system was a better alternative.

"There is no valid reason to create a new justice system only for non-U.S. citizens," he said.

[Donut]

I read of these (IMO extremely brave) officers last week. One thing that struck me was the following statement. "It is our duty as Officers in the US Military to defend the Constitution of the United States"

It is still unclear to me what protection is given to non-US citizens in the United States under the Constitution and/or the the US justice system.

I know that every person in the UK, regardless of citizenship, is entitled to the same protection as a UK citizen with the exception that we can't be deported. Is that not the case in the US?

Do I have the right to free speech when I'm in the US?

(make a mental note not to exercise this right before I clear customs/immigration.)