thedrifter
07-27-06, 08:13 AM
July 27, 2006
Rules Debated for Trials of Detainees
By DAVID S. CLOUD and SHERYL GAY STOLBERG
WASHINGTON, July 26 — Bush administration officials said Wednesday that they were still debating important aspects of a draft bill laying out new rules for bringing terror detainees to trial, with some of the sharpest disagreements over provisions that would allow defendants to be excluded from their own trials.
The military’s senior uniformed lawyers, known as judge advocates general, are concerned that those provisions may prompt other governments to put captured American soldiers on trial in absentia, said a senior official involved in the deliberations about the plan.
The debate is also driven in part by concern expressed by the Supreme Court about the exclusion of defendants when it struck down the Bush administration’s original effort to put terror detainees on trial before military commissions.
Though the draft administration bill provides new rules intended to deal with the Supreme Court objections, the draft plans would still allow defendants to be removed when classified evidence was presented.
That could leave an opening for defense lawyers to challenge the new rules in federal court if the draft plan was adopted in its current form by Congress, said the senior official, who spoke on condition of anonymity.
“The JAG’s are mulling over the extent to which the accused must be present at a military commission trial in light of the Supreme Court decision,” the official said, using an abbreviation for judge advocates general.
Getting the judge advocates general to endorse the draft plan is important, administration officials say. They believe that if the uniformed lawyers at the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines endorse the bill, it may help blunt a push by Republican senators who have led the calls for adopting trial rules that give more rights to defendants.
Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales defended the administration’s proposal on Wednesday, saying a provision that would permit hearsay evidence to be used against terrorism suspects was “very consistent’’ with international war crimes tribunals in Yugoslavia and Rwanda.
“We are looking at what has occurred around the world,’’ the attorney general said in an interview on C-Span, the cable network.
Mr. Gonzales was reacting to the disclosure on Wednesday in The New York Times of the details of legislation being drafted by the administration that would set out new rules on how to bring terror suspects to trial. The 32-page draft proposes a system of military commissions similar to those that were struck down last month by the Supreme Court.
The draft has been reviewed at the highest levels of the White House, a senior administration official said. The official said that President Bush was briefed on the measure last Thursday, and that Vice President Dick Cheney, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and National Security Adviser Stephen J. Hadley were also in the room.
What remains unclear is how close the draft is to a final bill. Asked if the administration is open to negotiations on the draft, Tony Snow, Mr. Bush’s spokesman, said Wednesday, “The way to talk about it is consultations.’’
In the television interview, the attorney general cited international tribunals to defend the draft. But in testimony on Capitol Hill on Wednesday, other experts cited those tribunals to point up problems with the legislation.
The plan to exclude defendants from their own legal proceedings if necessary does not adhere to the standard of international tribunals, said Judge Gerald Gahima, who is both a former judge for the war crimes chamber of the Court of Bosnia Herzegovina, and a former attorney general of Rwanda.
“The statutes of the Rwanda tribunal and the Yugoslav tribunals prohibit trials in absentia,’’ Judge Gahima said in testimony before the House Armed Services Committee.
In a telephone interview, John D. Hutson, a retired rear admiral and the Navy’s former top lawyer, also criticized the administration plan, saying that its provisions fell short of the standards for a fair trial contained in the military’s procedures for courts martial — rules that some members of Congress say should be the basis for prosecuting terror detainees.
Mr. Hutson, the dean of Franklin Pierce law school in New Hampshire, said that the administration plan was so weighted against defendants that “the administration seems doggedly determined to ensure convictions.”
Ellie
Rules Debated for Trials of Detainees
By DAVID S. CLOUD and SHERYL GAY STOLBERG
WASHINGTON, July 26 — Bush administration officials said Wednesday that they were still debating important aspects of a draft bill laying out new rules for bringing terror detainees to trial, with some of the sharpest disagreements over provisions that would allow defendants to be excluded from their own trials.
The military’s senior uniformed lawyers, known as judge advocates general, are concerned that those provisions may prompt other governments to put captured American soldiers on trial in absentia, said a senior official involved in the deliberations about the plan.
The debate is also driven in part by concern expressed by the Supreme Court about the exclusion of defendants when it struck down the Bush administration’s original effort to put terror detainees on trial before military commissions.
Though the draft administration bill provides new rules intended to deal with the Supreme Court objections, the draft plans would still allow defendants to be removed when classified evidence was presented.
That could leave an opening for defense lawyers to challenge the new rules in federal court if the draft plan was adopted in its current form by Congress, said the senior official, who spoke on condition of anonymity.
“The JAG’s are mulling over the extent to which the accused must be present at a military commission trial in light of the Supreme Court decision,” the official said, using an abbreviation for judge advocates general.
Getting the judge advocates general to endorse the draft plan is important, administration officials say. They believe that if the uniformed lawyers at the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines endorse the bill, it may help blunt a push by Republican senators who have led the calls for adopting trial rules that give more rights to defendants.
Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales defended the administration’s proposal on Wednesday, saying a provision that would permit hearsay evidence to be used against terrorism suspects was “very consistent’’ with international war crimes tribunals in Yugoslavia and Rwanda.
“We are looking at what has occurred around the world,’’ the attorney general said in an interview on C-Span, the cable network.
Mr. Gonzales was reacting to the disclosure on Wednesday in The New York Times of the details of legislation being drafted by the administration that would set out new rules on how to bring terror suspects to trial. The 32-page draft proposes a system of military commissions similar to those that were struck down last month by the Supreme Court.
The draft has been reviewed at the highest levels of the White House, a senior administration official said. The official said that President Bush was briefed on the measure last Thursday, and that Vice President Dick Cheney, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and National Security Adviser Stephen J. Hadley were also in the room.
What remains unclear is how close the draft is to a final bill. Asked if the administration is open to negotiations on the draft, Tony Snow, Mr. Bush’s spokesman, said Wednesday, “The way to talk about it is consultations.’’
In the television interview, the attorney general cited international tribunals to defend the draft. But in testimony on Capitol Hill on Wednesday, other experts cited those tribunals to point up problems with the legislation.
The plan to exclude defendants from their own legal proceedings if necessary does not adhere to the standard of international tribunals, said Judge Gerald Gahima, who is both a former judge for the war crimes chamber of the Court of Bosnia Herzegovina, and a former attorney general of Rwanda.
“The statutes of the Rwanda tribunal and the Yugoslav tribunals prohibit trials in absentia,’’ Judge Gahima said in testimony before the House Armed Services Committee.
In a telephone interview, John D. Hutson, a retired rear admiral and the Navy’s former top lawyer, also criticized the administration plan, saying that its provisions fell short of the standards for a fair trial contained in the military’s procedures for courts martial — rules that some members of Congress say should be the basis for prosecuting terror detainees.
Mr. Hutson, the dean of Franklin Pierce law school in New Hampshire, said that the administration plan was so weighted against defendants that “the administration seems doggedly determined to ensure convictions.”
Ellie