• Home
  • News
  • Obama Will Retain Military Commissions, But Revise the Rules

Guantanamo/Detainees

Obama Will Retain Military Commissions, But Revise the Rules

Posted May 15, 2009 5:39 AM CST
By Debra Cassens Weiss

President Obama is expected to announce today that he will retain military commissions to try some Guantanamo detainees while providing additional due process rights for the accused.

The rule changes would bar evidence obtained through "cruel, inhuman or degrading" interrogations, a change likely to ban evidence obtained through waterboarding, the Wall Street Journal reports. Other changes would give detainees greater latitude in picking their lawyers, restrict the use of hearsay evidence and protect detainees’ decisions not to testify, according to the story and articles in the Los Angeles Times and the New York Times.

Human rights groups are infuriated by the decision to retain the commissions, the Los Angeles Times says. "The results of the cases will be suspect around the world,” said Gabor Rona, the international legal director of Human Rights First. “It is a tragic mistake to continue them," she told the newspaper.

The New York Times explains the hearsay changes. The Bush administration had allowed the use of hearsay against detainees tried by the military commissions unless they could show it was unreliable. The Obama administration plans to reverse the burden of proof and require prosecutors introducing hearsay evidence to show it is reliable. While the shift in burden of proof gives detainees more protection, it still falls short of the hearsay protections in civilian courts, according to the story.

The Wall Street Journal explains other rule changes protecting decisions not to testify. Obama's new rules are expected to eliminate a Bush administration rule that required military judges to tell jurors that defendants seeking to introduce their interrogation statements are avoiding cross-examination. The new rules would also bar jurors from drawing an adverse inference from a detainee’s decision not to testify.

The administration will seek an additional 120-day delay in commission trials to give it time to show the rule changes to Congress 60 days before they take effect, as required by the Military Commissions Act, and to allow Congress to consider further legislation modifying the commissions, according to the Wall Street Journal.

No final decisions have been made on which detainees would be tried by the commissions. Those facing the most serious charges may be easier to try in regular court because they have bragged about their role in the Sept. 11 attacks, the Wall Street Journal says.

Comments

1.

J.D.
May 15, 2009 7:50 AM CST

Two flip-flops in two days. What’s next, the Obama Admin’s recognition that capitalism is superior to socialism? Can’t wait.

Flag this comment

2.

T.R.
May 15, 2009 9:39 AM CST

@J.D.:
Every message board needs a troll, and I think you are filling the role nicely.

As for the substance, the Gitmo situation is a complete mess.  Presumably, there are a handful of detainees who will be convicted of crimes in a tribunal system which recognizes passable rules of evidence, due process, etc.  Unfortunately, there are surely a number of them who were detained on suspcion alone with little or no real evidence.  Or, the evidence against them was procured in such a suspect manner (coercion, torture, etc.) as to be essentially useless in a fair tribunal.  Releasing these individuals in the U.S. is politically untenable, of course.  Also, the U.S. cannot simply remove them to another country unless that country agrees to take them.  Nor can the U.S. remove them to a country where they likely will be abused or killed extra-judicially.  The courts will not allow the government to simply detain them indefinitely, so there are really no good options to be found.  As there are only a few hundred cases total, hopefully the DOJ can work them all out eventually.  But overall, I think this is quite a political and ethical puzzle our current president faces.  I do not envy him.

Flag this comment

3.

J.D.
May 15, 2009 9:57 AM CST

As a bunch of Euro countries put it: If these guys are no longer a security threat, why not just release them into the U.S.?

Flag this comment

4.

mdw
May 15, 2009 3:47 PM CST

I just don’t get JD- which “Euro country” has said that?  Thank you no. 2 for a thoughtful opinion on the matter.  I believe the plan the president has proffered to be a solid suggestion, with a concern remaining of what to do with those who are not convicted within the tribunals.  Unfortunately, the United States has taken these people from their homeland and placed them in precarious situations.  While many human rights groups are fighting for fair trials, a fact which will never happen so long as there are people sitting on juries, the bigger question looms as to what to do with detainees who are acquitted or found not guilty of any charges following the tribunal.  While the rules of the tribunals are important, the main focus should be on the place and procedure of release, for the security of these individuals.  America took them away from what they knew and where they were and now owes these detainees deemed eligible for release a duty to return them to a place where they can be assured of relative safety.

Flag this comment

5.

B. McLeod
May 15, 2009 9:57 PM CST

Oh, you know. . . a bunch of “Euro countries” (probably maybe).  They’re all the same, right?  So why would it matter which one(s)?

Flag this comment

Add a Comment

We welcome your comments, but please adhere to our comment policy.

Commenting has expired on this post.