August 2, 2005
-- by Gary Boatwright
From Tim Grieve at Salon, A Fraud On The American People (watch 30 second ad for day pass):
Just last month, John G. Roberts joined two other federal appellate judges in a decision that cleared the way for the Bush administration to use military tribunals to try detainees at Guantánamo Bay. Here's a question an enterprising senator might pose to Roberts in his upcoming Supreme Court confirmation hearings: If he knew then what we're learning today, would he still have subjected the detainees to the military tribunal process?
What do we know today?
As the Wall Street Journal is reporting today, two Air Force lawyers quit their jobs on the Guantánamo prosecution team last year in protest over trials before military tribunals that they believe were rigged against the detainees. Read that last bit again: The lawyers quit their jobs on the prosecution team. These weren't defense lawyers, from whom one would expect to hear -- and, in fact, from whom one has heard -- complaints that the military tribunal process is unfair. Maj. John Carr and Maj. Robert Preston were Air Force prosecutors, and they quit their jobs on the prosecution team because even they thought that the tribunal process amounted to a kangaroo court.
The Bush Crime Family has been making a very big deal of their allegation that the only complaints about Guantanamo have been coming from former detainees and defense lawyers.
In e-mail messages provided to the Journal and to the New York Times, Carr and Preston accused their superiors of rigging the tribunals against the detainees and charged their fellow prosecutors with ignoring allegations of torture, failing to protect evidence that could have exonerated some detainees and withholding information from their superiors.
In one March 2004 e-mail message, Carr said that Col. Frederick L. Borch, then the chief Guantánamo prosecutor, had "repeatedly" told the prosecutors who worked for him "that the military panel will be handpicked and will not acquit these detainees and we only needed to worry about building a record for the review panel" and academicians who would study the cases later. Preston said in another e-mail message that moving forward with the tribunals would be "a severe threat to the reputation of the military justice system and even a fraud on the American people." Preston wrote: "I lie awake worrying about this every night ... writing a motion saying that the process will be full and fair when you don't really believe it will be is kind of hard -- particularly when you want to call yourself an officer and a lawyer."
Now we know exactly what the JAG lawyers were complaining about last year to the New York Bar Association. Maj. Preston has personal ethical and moral standards for his conduct as an officer and a lawyer that he refuses to violate.
We all know how horrible it would be to expect a judicial nominee to answer a prospective question about how they might rule on a particular case or controversy. I am not aware of any prohibition against asking an appellate judge to comment on past decisions they have made. Does Judge Roberts have any ethical or moral standards that America's conduct in Guantanamo has violated?
TrackBack URL for this entry:
What's the bets that that question is NOT going to be asked Gary? Good post!
Post a comment
Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)