Learn from the mistakes of others

Saturday, April 08, 2006
Pentagon rules thwart fair trials for Guantanamo detainees: US military lawyer
Greg Sampson at 11:21 AM ET

[JURIST] A US military lawyer acting as defense counsel for a Yemeni prisoner on trial for terrorism-related offenses before a military commission [DOD backgrounder; JURIST news archive] at Guantanamo Bay [JURIST news archive] on Friday challenged a US Department of Defense regulation that says that only military attorneys with security clearances are allowed to see secret documents relating to their cases, effectively precluding detainees from representing themselves. Army Maj. Tom Fleener [Wikipedia profile] said that self-representation was recognized as a right by virtually every court in the world, and argued that "the secretary of defense and his delegees [sic] have messed this thing up" by enforcing procedural rules that make impossible a fair trial of detainees as mandated by presidential order.

Defendant Ali Hamza al-Bahlul has been directly tied to Osama bin Laden. Al-Bahlul has been boycotting his trial [JURIST report] since the military commissions resumed in January after a year-long hiatus. In March he specifically claimed that no "enemy" US military lawyer could represent him, demanding instead that he be allowed to defend himself or hire a Yemeni lawyer.

Reuters has more.

Saturday, April 08, 2006
Pentagon rules thwart fair trials for Guantanamo detainees: US military lawyer
Greg Sampson at 11:21 AM ET

[JURIST] A US military lawyer acting as defense counsel for a Yemeni prisoner on trial for terrorism-related offenses before a military commission [DOD backgrounder; JURIST news archive] at Guantanamo Bay [JURIST news archive] on Friday challenged a US Department of Defense regulation that says that only military attorneys with security clearances are allowed to see secret documents relating to their cases, effectively precluding detainees from representing themselves. Army Maj. Tom Fleener [Wikipedia profile] said that self-representation was recognized as a right by virtually every court in the world, and argued that "the secretary of defense and his delegees [sic] have messed this thing up" by enforcing procedural rules that make impossible a fair trial of detainees as mandated by presidential order.

Defendant Ali Hamza al-Bahlul has been directly tied to Osama bin Laden. Al-Bahlul has been boycotting his trial [JURIST report] since the military commissions resumed in January after a year-long hiatus. In March he specifically claimed that no "enemy" US military lawyer could represent him, demanding instead that he be allowed to defend himself or hire a Yemeni lawyer.

Reuters has more.

The ‘reasonable person’ has just become even more unreasonable.

Our legal system has developed the term ‘reasonable person’ as a term of art over some hundreds of years. It’s not easy to find a clear definition, but it used to be pretty obvious what it meant after you read a couple of quotes.

As a lawyer, I’ll be expected to explain how this law makes any sense to people who have been dragged into court by it. The ease with which these kinds of changes to our laws can be made is more terrifying than the supposed threat they address.

‘Ignorance is no excuse’ is now a very unreasonable part of our ever more terrified body of laws. Laws we’re supposed to not only make ourselves aware of, but take seriously.

The ‘reasonable person’ has just become even more unreasonable.

Our legal system has developed the term ‘reasonable person’ as a term of art over some hundreds of years. It’s not easy to find a clear definition, but it used to be pretty obvious what it meant after you read a couple of quotes.

As a lawyer, I’ll be expected to explain how this law makes any sense to people who have been dragged into court by it. The ease with which these kinds of changes to our laws can be made is more terrifying than the supposed threat they address.

‘Ignorance is no excuse’ is now a very unreasonable part of our ever more terrified body of laws. Laws we’re supposed to not only make ourselves aware of, but take seriously.

Smart card would trump Australia Card
smh.com.au March 29, 2006

Smart card would trump Australia Card
smh.com.au March 29, 2006

the truth is definitely out there. in every sense of the words 'out' and 'there'.

the us doj, in answer to questions from both sides of politics on the house judiciary committee (something like our house of reps standing committee on legal and constitutional affairs) regarding the legality of the nsa's warrantless wiretapping responded "of course they're legal. even if they breach client legal privilege or doctor-patient confidentiality, they're legal and it's all admissible in court. coz we said so. oh, and we don;t have to answer any more of your questions, coz of national security. nyah!"

meanwhile, a us federal magistrate told the bush administration that it cannot stop lawyers from seeing their clients at guantanamo bay. the us executive have been playing the same kind of games our government plays with it's own (immigration) detainees. but hey, they're being detained legitimately, right, so why should they be able to challenge the legitimacy of their detention? *facepalm*

justice scalia, meanwhile, had made his bias against guantanamo detainees pretty clear in a recent speech at a university in switzerland. i wonder if he'll excuse himself from hearing a relevant case this time ...

the truth is definitely out there. in every sense of the words 'out' and 'there'.

the us doj, in answer to questions from both sides of politics on the house judiciary committee (something like our house of reps standing committee on legal and constitutional affairs) regarding the legality of the nsa's warrantless wiretapping responded "of course they're legal. even if they breach client legal privilege or doctor-patient confidentiality, they're legal and it's all admissible in court. coz we said so. oh, and we don;t have to answer any more of your questions, coz of national security. nyah!"

meanwhile, a us federal magistrate told the bush administration that it cannot stop lawyers from seeing their clients at guantanamo bay. the us executive have been playing the same kind of games our government plays with it's own (immigration) detainees. but hey, they're being detained legitimately, right, so why should they be able to challenge the legitimacy of their detention? *facepalm*

justice scalia, meanwhile, had made his bias against guantanamo detainees pretty clear in a recent speech at a university in switzerland. i wonder if he'll excuse himself from hearing a relevant case this time ...

The idea that terrorists might be people after all, is beginning to seep in ... from Indonesia. Rehabilitation of terrorists is being considered as a real possibility.

This idea put forward by Police Commissioner Mick Keelty on telly last night, that the Australian government is considering a system of rehabilitating terrorists, is quite extraordinary.

"Thinking outside the chamber", road to surfdom, March 09, 2006

It is extraordinary because until now the kill, kill, kill approach has been adhered to so steadfastly by our political leaders.

MICK KEELTY: Well, it would require a policy change here and, to put it into some perspective here, if you take, for example, the problem of drugs, for many years people have thought, well, can we force people into treatment to get them to overcome their problem? Even in the jail system, can we impose a treatment regime on people and it's a policy question that really hasn't been addressed here and really certainly hasn't been imposed. There's nowhere in Australia where drug addicts, if you like, are forced into treatment to overcome their problem. So, essentially, it would be a threshold question in terms of policy as to whether we would engage in something that forces people into some sort of deprogramming or deradicalisation.

Tony Jones, "Keelty discusses reprogramming terrorists", ABC Lateline, 08/03/2006

The idea that terrorists might be people after all, is beginning to seep in ... from Indonesia. Rehabilitation of terrorists is being considered as a real possibility.

This idea put forward by Police Commissioner Mick Keelty on telly last night, that the Australian government is considering a system of rehabilitating terrorists, is quite extraordinary.

"Thinking outside the chamber", road to surfdom, March 09, 2006

It is extraordinary because until now the kill, kill, kill approach has been adhered to so steadfastly by our political leaders.

MICK KEELTY: Well, it would require a policy change here and, to put it into some perspective here, if you take, for example, the problem of drugs, for many years people have thought, well, can we force people into treatment to get them to overcome their problem? Even in the jail system, can we impose a treatment regime on people and it's a policy question that really hasn't been addressed here and really certainly hasn't been imposed. There's nowhere in Australia where drug addicts, if you like, are forced into treatment to overcome their problem. So, essentially, it would be a threshold question in terms of policy as to whether we would engage in something that forces people into some sort of deprogramming or deradicalisation.

Tony Jones, "Keelty discusses reprogramming terrorists", ABC Lateline, 08/03/2006