US accused of using 'kangaroo court' to try men accused of role in September 11 attacks
Tuesday, 12 February 2008
The United States military announced yesterday that it was bringing death penalty charges against Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and five other men suspected of orchestrating the September 11 attacks, and intended to try them under the Bush administration's much-criticised military tribunal system, which is subject only to partial oversight by the civilian appeals system.
The decision to use Mohammed and the others as guinea-pigs in a constitutionally dubious legal proceeding is likely to trigger a firestorm of anti-American sentiment in the Islamic world and spark a fractious domestic debate in an already highly charged presidential election year.
Concerns were raised last night of political interference by the White House in the military's decision to go to trial in the middle of an election campaign in which the Republican frontrunner, John McCain, has made the fight against al-Qa'ida central to his election bid.
"What we are looking at is a series of show trials by the Bush administration that are really devoid of any due process considerations," said Vincent Warren, the executive director head of Centre for Constitutional Rights, which represents many Guantanamo detainees. "Rather than playing politics the Bush administration should be seeking speedy and fair trials," he said. "These are trials that are going to be based on torture as confessions as well as secret evidence. There is no way that this can be said to be fair especially as the death penalty could be an outcome."
While few doubts have been raised, domestically or internationally, about the men's involvement in the attacks on New York and Washington, just about everything else about their treatment has been bitterly contested and is likely to continue to be contested, inside the courtroom and out. Everything is laden with potential controversy – the decision to try the six men together rather than individually, the proposed venue at Guantanamo Bay, where all six are being held, the threatened use of the death penalty, and perhaps the most controversial question of all: the admissibility of evidence gathered through waterboarding and other coercive techniques generally defined as torture.
Even Brig-Gen Thomas Hartmann, the Pentagon official co-ordinating the case, acknowledged yesterday that it could be several months before a trial begins and months more, if not years, before any death penalty – assuming it is enforced – is carried out.
General Hartmann was careful to say that he wanted the trial proceedings to be "as completely open as possible", with lawyers and journalists present in the courtroom – barring the possibility of some closed sessions to consider classified information. He stressed that the men would be regarded as innocent until proven guilty, just as they would in a civilian court. And he promised to provide "every piece of evidence, every stitch of evidence, every whiff of evidence" to the defendants' lawyers so they would be fully able to prepare for trial.
That did little to stop Clive Stafford Smith, the British lawyer who has worked on behalf of "enemy combatants" at Guantanamo, to issue a condemnation of the "kangaroo court". He said: "Anyone can see the hypocrisy of espousing human rights, then trampling on them. We will infuriate our allies who firmly oppose the death penalty. We will anger the world."
Aside from Mohammed, alleged to be the mastermind who planned and coordinated the September 11 attacks, the defendants are Mohammed al-Qahtani, labelled by US officials the "20th hijacker" who never made it on board any of the planes that were crashed; Ramzi Bin al-Shibh, an associate of Mohammed Atta's in Hamburg who is believed to have acted as an intermediary between the hijackers and the al-Qa'ida leadership; Ali Abd al-Aziz Ali, a nephew of Mohammed's suspected of acting as his chief lieutenant; Waleed bin Attash, believed to have trained the hijackers; and Mustafa Ahmad al-Hawsawi.
But contrary to General Hartmann's assurances, it is far from clear what rights any of these men will have. The Supreme Court, which struck down an earlier version of the military tribunal system, is expected to rule before July on whether the protections of the US Constitution apply to them.
Several commentators noted yesterday that the Bush administration is taking a risk by trying to press ahead with the trials. Its previous efforts to pursue justice against suspected terrorists have been patchy, if not downright disastrous.
Zacarias Moussaoui, the French national previously labelled the 20th hijacker, escaped the death penalty at his civilian trial and emerged as a deeply disturbed individual scarcely capable of participating in a sophisticated guerrilla operation – much to the embarrassment of the federal prosecutors who tried him in civilian court in Virginia.
Jose Padilla, the US citizen accused of wanting to detonate a radioactive "dirty bomb", won the argument that he could not be held indefinitely in military custody without trial and went on trial in civilian court. He received a far lighter sentence than his prosecutors were seeking – 17 years instead of 30 to life.
The Bush administration appears to believe that, politically at least, it can win the argument by stirring up the country's emotions about the worst peacetime attack on its own soil.
Facing execution
* Khalid Sheikh Mohammed
The Pakistani, educated in the US, claims responsibility for 31 attacks and plots including the 9/11 attacks and the beheading of Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl. Accused of being military commander for al-Qa'ida's foreign operations. Captured in Pakistan in 2003 and taken to Guantanamo Bay from secret CIA prison. During interrogation, was subjected to simulated drowning technique known as waterboarding.
* Ali Adb Al-Aziz Ali
A nephew of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and cousin of jailed 9/11 bomber Ramzi Yousef. Accused of facilitating the attacks by transferring $120,000 to US-based operatives and assisting nine hijackers on their way from Pakistan.
* Ramzi Bin al-shibh
The former room-mate of Mohamed Atta is accused of being a link between al-Qa'ida and the hijackers. The Pentagon says he helped find flight schools for the al-Qa'ida pilots.
* Walid Bin Attash
The Yemeni, who was raised in Saudi Arabia, is accused of running al-Qa'ida camp in Afghanistan where he trained two 9/11 hijackers. Has admitted planning the attack on the USS Cole, and has also claimed involvement in the bombing of the US embassy in Kenya.
* Mustafa Ahmad al-hawsawi
The Saudi national is accused of being a money-man for the 9/11 attackers. The Pentagon says he provided them with cash, Western clothing, credit cards traveller's cheques.
* Mohammed al-Qahtani
Officials say he was meant to be one of the hijackers but was barred from the US by immigration officials at Orlando Airport. Captured at Tora Bora caves in Afghanistan.
Robert Verkaik: A threat to US relations with Britain
Tuesday, 12 February 2008
The decision by the Bush administration to press for the death penalty against six men accused in connection with the September 11 attacks on the US will place further strain on the relationship between America and Britain over the prosecution of the war on terror.
Britain is opposed to capital punishment and has been increasingly critical of the treatment of prisoners held in Guantanamo Bay.
Both Tony Blair and Gordon Brown have called for the closure of the prison camp at the US naval base in Cuba which still holds 275 inmates, many of whom have been unlawfully detained for more than five years.
The former attorney general Lord Goldsmith also expressed concerns about the legally flawed system of the military tribunals, set up to try non-US citizens and which one law lord likened to "kangaroo courts".
Any convictions supported by findings from the military commissions are bound to provoke an international outcry. Human rights lawyers regard the tribunals as an affront to natural justice because the evidence against the suspects has been secured through torture or unlawful detention.
Reprieve, the UK legal campaigning charity, condemned America's reliance on the tribunals and its latest decision to seek the death penalty against the six men.
Clive Stafford Smith, Reprieve's legal director, said: "Military commissions in Guantanamo Bay are not about justice – they are about politics. The proceedings these men would face are deeply flawed. Someone could be put to death based on secret or third or fourth-hand evidence. That is not the American way."
Reprieve fears Binyam Mohamed, a British resident, could be the next to go before the tribunal. Mr Mohamed claims he was tortured while being questioned in Morocco by US interrogators. His lawyers say his mental health has now deteriorated so seriously he has become a suicide risk. Since the Americans agreed to release four British residents from Guantanamo last year, the Foreign Office has been making representations on Mr Mohamed's behalf.
Blair went to war on a lie, law lords told
Tuesday, 12 February 2008
The mothers of two teenage soldiers killed in Iraq accused Tony Blair's government of going to war "on a lie" as they took their fight for a public inquiry into the conflict to the House of Lords.
Beverly Clarke and Rose Gentle argue that ministers breached their duty to Britain's armed forces by failing to ensure the invasion was lawful.
Trooper David Clarke, from Littleworth, Staffordshire, was killed by "friendly fire" near Basra in 2003, while Fusilier Gordon Gentle, from Glasgow, died in a roadside bomb attack in Basra in 2004. Both were 19.
The law lords yesterday began considering the mothers' argument that servicemen and women have the right not to have their lives jeopardised in illegal conflicts.
Rabinder Singh QC, who is representing the women, told the court: "That duty is owed to soldiers who are under the unique compulsory control of the state and have to obey orders. They have to put their lives in harm's way if necessary because their country demands it."
Mr Singh said the overwhelming body of legal advice received by the Government was that the invasion would not be lawful without a second UN Security Council resolution. "These mothers ... have come to court with reluctance. They are proud of their sons, who died with honour serving their country," he said.
Mrs Clarke and Mrs Gentle base their argument on the legal advice prepared by Lord Goldsmith, the former attorney general, in the run-up to the war. They say 13 pages of "equivocal" advice were reduced to one page of unequivocal advice that military action would be legal in just 10 days.
The women are challenging a Court of Appeal ruling that said the Government was not obliged to order an independent inquiry under Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which protects the "right to life".
Mrs Gentle said: "I think Tony Blair sent our boys to war on a lie. He just agreed with George Bush right away." Peter Brierley, whose son, L/Cpl Shaun Brierley, was killed in 2006, said: "This was not defending his country. The country was not under any threat of attack."
Lord Bingham, sitting with eight other law lords, said they were mindful of "the human loss which underlies these proceedings".
No comments:
Post a Comment