« Kerry Rocks | Main | Movie Weekend »

June 13, 2004
Military Tribunals

A fascinating look into the "system" of military tribunals set up by the administration and the Defense Department to handle "enemy combatants" in today's New York Times Magazine.

The story revolves around Lt. Cmdr. Charles Swift, a Navy lawyer assigned to defend some of those held in Guantanamo Bay. Instead of rolling over or working for plea bargains, Swift has filed a lawsuit in federal court against president Bush and Secretary Rumsfeld alleging that the tribunal system violates the Constitution, federal law, the Geneva Conventions and the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

An optimist by nature, Swift was inclined to believe that the post-9/11 military-tribunal process would be fair. But over the course of the spring last year, as the Defense Department continued to define the workings of the military tribunals, his hopefulness began to fade. He learned that under the emerging system, his client, should he be assigned one, would not necessarily be able to see the evidence against him. Hearsay would be permitted, and there would be no appeals process beyond a four-member review panel handpicked by the secretary of defense. What is more, the Defense Department (in effect, the prosecution) was not only defining the crimes worthy of trial by military tribunal but also doing so only after hundreds of suspects were already in custody and had been repeatedly interrogated. In theory, crimes could be retrofitted to suit the testimony of prisoners.

''It was like a Monty Python movie,'' Swift says. ''The government had this wonderful suit of armor, a lance and a sword. And I had been given a sharp stick.''

Their case hinges on another case currently before the Supreme Court, which should have a decision later this month. This is one to watch.

Comments

Previous Comments