Trial by Fiat, Because Now You Trust Us

White House Proposal Would Expand Authority of Military Courts
By R. Jeffrey Smith
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, August 2, 2006; Page A04

A draft Bush administration plan for special military courts seeks to expand the reach and authority of such "commissions" to include trials, for the first time, of people who are not members of al-Qaeda or the Taliban and are not directly involved in acts of international terrorism, according to officials familiar with the proposal.

The plan, which would replace a military trial system ruled illegal by the Supreme Court in June, would also allow the secretary of defense to add crimes at will to those under the military court's jurisdiction. The two provisions would be likely to put more individuals than previously expected before military juries, officials and independent experts said...

Under the proposed procedures, defendants would lack rights to confront accusers, exclude hearsay accusations, or bar evidence obtained through rough or coercive interrogations. They would not be guaranteed a public or speedy trial and would lack the right to choose their military counsel, who in turn would not be guaranteed equal access to evidence held by prosecutors.

Detainees would also not be guaranteed the right to be present at their own trials, if their absence is deemed necessary to protect national security or individuals.

An early draft of the new measure prepared by civilian political appointees and leaked to the media last week has been modified in response to criticism from uniformed military lawyers. But the provisions allowing a future expansion of the courts to cover new crimes and more prisoners were retained, according to government officials familiar with the deliberations...

John D. Hutson, the Navy's top uniformed lawyer from 1997 to 2000, said the rules would evidently allow the government to tell a prisoner: "We know you're guilty. We can't tell you why, but there's a guy, we can't tell you who, who told us something. We can't tell you what, but you're guilty."

Bruce Fein, an associate deputy attorney general during the Reagan administration, said after reviewing the leaked draft that "the theme of the government seems to be 'They are guilty anyway, and therefore due process can be slighted.' " With these procedures, Fein said, "there is a real danger of getting a wrong verdict" that would let a lower-echelon detainee "rot for 30 years" at Guantanamo Bay because of evidence contrived by personal enemies...

To secure a death penalty under the draft legislation, at least five jurors must agree, two fewer than under the administration's earlier plan. Courts-martial and federal civilian trials require that 12 jurors agree.

Execution of an accused prisoner on heresay, unable to defend at trial, on the order of 5 out of 12 jurors.

They don't call him Darth Rumsfeld for nothing!

Avedon calls it right:

The administration's reaction to the Hamdan decision is apparently that they should simply set fire to the Constitution... the administration is openly trying to remove all of your fundamental rights...

I didn't find anything in the article to suggest that there is any limit to who could be arrested and sent to kangaroo court. Peace nuns? Vegans? People who don't stay in the "free speech zones"? T-shirt-wearers? Bloggers? Anyone?

Don Negroponte likes this one, too. Finally, he's got room to work here at home.

In another amazing non-headline, it turns out the PentaclePentagon may admit they weren't entirely honest with Congress about what happened on 9-11.

It seems there are some tapes that "prove" it (Thanks to Atrios for the link- and the continuous opportunities to bait trolls).

And anyone who regards them, the government, the NORAD tapes, or any information about 9-11 cynically is of course a conspiracy theorist.

Now they're telling the Truth. Always. Just because the Bible tells you so.