Just One Reason We Should Dump Guantanamo and the Secret Trials

"GUANTANAMO BAY U.S. NAVAL BASE, Cuba (Reuters) - The U.S. government has for years had secret evidence that could help a young Canadian prisoner defend himself in the Guantanamo war crimes tribunals, a military defense lawyer said on Thursday."

As if kangaroo courts, renditions, waterboarding, pictures of torture, secret trials with unsubstantiated evidence, and no access to lawyers haven't been enough to sully the reputation of military justice and the good name of the United States around the world, we now learn that the government has withheld information that might have exonerated at least one of the captives held for many years in Guantanamo.
http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSN0754154120071108

One has to ask whether we have come so far along this road that we will ever be able to regain the moral high ground we once held and for which we used to be admired by the nations of the world. Disgusting!

No votes yet

From the article:
The prosecutor, Marine Maj. Jeffrey Groharing, said he could prove that designation applied by showing a videotape of Khadr making and planting roadside explosives in Afghanistan. The video was recovered from the compound where Khadr was captured, he said.

Brownback refused to allow it and the issue was postponed to allow time for the defense to examine the new evidence.

Im curious about this. If this kid WAS planting roadside bombs in afganistan, and they have a video showing him doing this, what evidence could this "witness" provide that proves he was innocent? Or maybe i just dont understand the difference between a "lawful" and "unlawful" enemy combatant?? Or am i mis-understanding the article completly?

Yeah, it's kind of hard to see exactly what's happening here. What I got out of it was the "existence of 'potentially exculpatory evidence' from a U.S. government eyewitness to the battle in Afghanistan that resulted in Khadr's capture in 2002" and that was not provided to the defense. "The evidence could challenge the government's assertion that Khadr is an 'unlawful enemy combatant' subject to trial by the special military tribunals the Bush administration set up to try foreign captives held as suspected terrorists at Guantanamo... the distinction was crucial because international law requires other types of trial for lawful combatants."

As I understand it, he is claiming to be a lawful combatant and that is backed up by a government eyewitness.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.